In Goa a priest named Bismaraque Dias is contesting elections; 
HaIf Priesthood doesn’t Exist; Why Discuss Priests in Politics?

Fr. Bismarque’s decision to contest elections in Goa has rekindled the topic “Priests in Politics”. If the basis of priesthood is not supported by words and deeds of Jesus (Gospels), as argued by scholars, the topic should rather be: “Christians or followers of Jesus in Politics,” not Priests!

Dr.James Kottoor

 “Soldiers in the rough and tumble of battle field must do and die, while generals in their cosy comfort must reason why?”(even on things as silly as a date of birth totally irrelevant to any war strategy). Similarly Canon lawyers can break their brains hair splitting what is forbidden, permitted, licit, illicit, possible, probable or feasible, and theologians can indulge in their day dreams computing how many angels can stand on the sharp end of a needle.  All these are permissible once a suitable premise is unquestioningly accepted as divinely ordained.

The question here is the general belief in the existence and the sanctity of priesthood as a “Holy Cow” set-apart from the rest of humans trudging the dirty path of wine and women, crime and punishment, power, position and pelf – all permissible or tolerable to ordinary frail mortals, not priests. It is then left to the fertile imagination of fanciful minds to draw conclusions they want to or inclined to. This seems to be the situation we are in while discussing or politicizing the question of Priests in Politics, to my puny mind.

 Politics, the generally accepted art of the possible for “the greatest good of the greatest number of people” is a given fact. It is a task everyone who calls himself a citizen is in duty bound to grapple with and can’t get away from. But how well conceived and firmly grounded on bedrock foundations, not on slippery slope, is the  concept of Priesthood whether in the Catholic church, other churches or even in all religions? For Marx religion is the opium people take to get kicks for themselves for right or wrong reasons.  We can’t jump on a horse and gallop in all directions. Only in one direction. Yet change being the unchanging law of nature we should push for constructive change on all frontiers of knowledge, including our understanding of priesthood.

Let us take a brief look at this sacred cow called the priestly class. For Christians in general and priests in particular their role model ought to be one and  only person JESUS, the carpenter of Nazareth, the Man from Galilee or Eternal Galilean as he is variously called. Priests call him, Priest Par Excellence, to justify their claim to be modelled after him – other Christs.

But what in fact were Jesus and his response to the times he lived to reform and rebuild it through his words and actions? That world of Jesus 2000 years ago was not what it is today with its changed needs and challenges. It would be foolish to imagine that Jesus would be responding to the signs of our times the same way as he did to his own times. Changed times, changed needs and challenges need changed responses.

Jesus and Politics

So the moot question  especially for the priestly class today, is to discover how Jesus would be responding – speaking, teaching, reaction, questioning working, eating, dressing, travelling,  in short, living dawn to dusk  confronting all sections of society – to  make our modern times far better than what it is now. Today more than anything else, the ugly face of corruption is exploding on all fronts starting with top leaders in politics.  What would be Jesus’ response to this challenge? In his time, it was Herod who massacred the innocents and Jesus didn’t mince words to call him a “Fox”, least concerned about the consequences.

For Christians Jesus is the role model for all sections of society — men and women, rich and  poor,  sick and  healthy, rulers and ruled, sinners and saints, believers and unbelievers, high castes and low castes, illiterates and educated --- because he presented himself and wants to present himself as a MAN for all seasons, places, peoples, cultures and climates. Although believers look up to him as the human face of an invisible God, Jesus always referred to God as his and our Father in heaven and referred to humans as  children, equal in God’s sight as brothers and sisters.

As  a corollary he referred to himself both as “Son of God” and “Son of Man” but more as the Son of Man – 85 times in the New Testament, compared to only 38 times as Son of God. Quite unlike the many worshipful super-religious god-men of our times, especially in the Church, he never asked any one to worship or revere him but only the Father in heaven. What is more he was a man of high morals (no one could accuse him of sin) and universal secular outlook giving priority to truth, love, justice, compassion, mercy, forgiveness rather than to religiosity, pujas, temple worship and things associated cultic and ritualistic practices.

Jesus Despised Priests?

He was a man of deep prayer. But always he prayed in silence and solitude on mountain tops, never in temples and synagogues where he went either to teach, discuss or to chase out buyers and sellers.   He had a very poor opinion of the priestly class of his times. This is evident from the litany of “woes” and “hypocrites” he showered on them (Mtt.23) and his account of the parable of the Good Samaritan, who turned out to be the out-cast of his times, a Samaritan, not the Priest or Levite whom the parable by inference admonishes not to follow. 

Nor was he a man enamoured of public worship where bloody  or un-bloody sacrificial offerings are made, purification rites and rituals with fire, incense and ablutions are done,  prayers and petitions are shouted out as if God is hard of hearing,  all done to the accompaniment of modern musical instruments as if God has to be entertained and enticed to listen. Jesus warned against it, asking his followers to pray in silence within closed doors.

To the woman at the well he was categorical in asserting that time has  come to worship God not at that temple or this temple, that mountain or this mountain  but “in spirit and truth” in the cave of one’s heart.

Jesus was a Secular Person

Based on such findings too many to recount, theologians and scripture scholars  assert unequivocally that “Jesus never spoke of himself as a priest, nor considered any of his followers as priests.   Jesus was a thoroughly secular person, a layman. …To speak of Jesus ordaining anyone is sheer anachronism, as the idea of “ordaining” (entering into the order/rank) came in only around the 4th century based on the class divisions in the empire; there were many orders - (grades like Senators, Nobles, etc) the whole system of the empire was taken over by the Church from the 4th century onwards. If at all we want to see an “ordination” in the NT, it is the story of the foot washing (Jn 13) – but it would not be proper to call it an “ordination.,” according to Dr.Joseph Mattam sj, founder and dean of the first ever Regional Jesuit Theologate and first regional seminary in Gujarat and its dean for nearly 16 years.

 He has been teaching seminarians, conducting seminars and retreats for priests and sisters. Being a sought after speaker at international conferences he is a regular visitor to countries in Europe and Americas. In a 12-page article on “Servant Leaders”, he demolishes the claim that Jesus was a priest or instituted the Priesthood, we venerate today.

Disturbing a Hornet’s Nest?

If priesthood as we have it today --  a hierarchical set up with the newly ordained cleric at the bottom and the Pope at the pinnacle  --  doesn’t exist, if it has no theological and biblical foundation and is against the mind and teaching of Jesus, what is the relevance of discussing a topic like: Priests in Politics? To argue it out would be tantamount to putting the axe to the root of the tree on which the whole clerical class is perched with privileges galore.

It would be like throwing a stone into a hornet’s nest. That is why much of it is not discussed publicly in Catholic media. The secular media often follow suit, for the sake of not offending pious sensibilities of the clerical class. Similarly they take utmost caution not to provoke Muslim Maulavies to issue Fatwas, or Sri Ram Sena to go on a rampage by questioning their pious beliefs.

But serious subdued  discussions are going on among scholars and theologians who love the good of the church and want to refashion it according to the mind of Jesus, not according to the mind of empire builders in  churches who are at best imitators of the political parties of our times going after power, position and pelf, not service to the needy when they fight for their particular Rites or brands of churchianity. If  political leaders are first and foremost at the service of their party not of the public, the clerical class is at the service of their particular Rite or brand of church, not of the public or followers of Jesus.

Yet Tolerant & Changing

But the Catholic Church has learned a lot to be very tolerant even of vicious criticisms both from within and without. Just think of the litany of “Mea Culpa” (public acknowledgement of failures) by Pope John Paul II. Think of the recent instance of the newly appointed Cardinal George Alanchery’s public appeal not to address him as “the most highly placed” who is God alone, which is indicative of his readiness to shake off the dust of the empire from his shoulders.

Similar is also the ongoing controversy in the Catholic Church regarding the ordination of women priests. When the church insists that she has commissioned only men to bring about sacramental presence of Jesus on the altar, women theologians in India and abroad argue that women are more fit than men for the purpose because it was Mary, the Priestess par excellence who brought into this world the physical presence of Jesus from her womb for the first time. Even they openly admit that the basic issue here is not priesthood but an   alibi used for  denial of equal opportunities for women in the Church because of male domination. They too assert that priesthood has no biblical basis except in the letter to Hebrews of St. Paul, an erudite Jew, who with the best of intentions got the Jewish concept of priesthood and sacrifice which Jesus discarded, reintroduced into the Church through the back door.

Class divisions Betray Jesus

Jesus was a bitter critique of the pomposity and hypocrisy of the Jewish hierarchical priesthood which got rid of him through crucifixion. Commenting on it famous scripture scholar John McKenzie sj, of happy memory, wrote half in joke, half in earnest, that the Jews were only against Jesus whom they got rid of, but not against the Church but in fact very fond of it (for permitting back door entry of their priesthood?) and joined it and so were promoted to high offices in the Church. But it is no joke for the ardent followers of Jesus who want to rebuild the church they love, into a community of equality and brotherhood (of comrades in Communist terminology) and bury once and for all a hierarchical system of inequality based on position, possession,  power and dual citizenship – clergy and laity -- in the church.

In his life time Jesus was betrayed only by one of his followers, Judas. But after his death he is being betrayed constantly by his so-called followers, especially by those who claim to be his torch bearers.  Dr. Mattam writes elaborately and gives a litany of such instances in another article: Jesus Betrayed Again and Again, in the church which I shall not go into here for limitations of space.

So I see no problem for the political stand Fr. Bismarque Dias of Goa has taken, if his commitment is to follow Jesus on the mission of liberating captives and setting the downtrodden free as outlined in his Nazareth manifesto (Lk.4, 18-19). Let canon lawyers and theologians go on discussing the relevance or irrelevance, the existence or non-existence of a priesthood after the order of Melchisedek with unknown origin and uncertain destiny. 

Fr. Bismarque  in good company

Fr. Dias is in the company of Sr.  Valsa John and Sr. Rani Maria who laid down their lives for the cause of the exploited. Another is the example of Swami Sadanand (Fr. Machael Purattukara CMI) who intervened to settle conflicts in  Trissur Archdiocese,  though it didn’t get  due publicity ether in Catholic or secular media but was reported by Varghese Alangaden (IC,25/12/11).

When Fr. Drinen joined politics in US they spoke of him as “our Father in Parliament (US house)”.  There must have been similar comments about Fr. P. J. Jacob when he became  MLA in Karnataka. I had a chance to meet and write on him when Fr.Chathaparampil of  happy memory of Vaideekamitram, took me to meet him long ago. We need trail blazers from all sections of the followers of Jesus to carry forward  radical changes he initiated. Haven’t we priest workers, priest ambassadors,  priest diplomats,  priest engineers, builders, administrators, scientists and priest chaplains for soldiers? Is this last one to promote war for the sake of Jesus, one may ask.

 Once upon a time some crazy guys in US used to sport buttons on themselves with exhortation: “Kill a Commie for Christ.” Priests in politics can’t be rated as bad as that.  Ever since the second Vatican Council, time for witch-hunts and inquisitions has become passé and winds of change are tolerated. Nay they are to be encouraged in the Catholic Church.

The writer  can be contacted at jameskottoor@gmail.com