Image

വൈദികര്‍ വന്നാല്‍ രാഷ്ട്രീയം ശുദ്ധമാകും: ഫാ: ജോസഫ് മറ്റം

Published on 25 February, 2012
വൈദികര്‍ വന്നാല്‍ രാഷ്ട്രീയം ശുദ്ധമാകും: ഫാ: ജോസഫ് മറ്റം
Though it is a fact that Bishops can be ambassadors, representatives of the Vatican State all over the world, and the Bishop of Rome is also the head of a sovereign state, the Vatican authorities have consistently opposed priests standing for election or holding public office. 

Joseph Mattam, SJ

The Catholic Church has from the time of Gaudium et Spes emphasized the importance of Christians being involved in civil life and “play their role as citizens”. In the 2002 document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “The Participation of Catholics in Political Life” Cardinal Ratzinger mentioned the example of saints like Thomas More who were actively involved in Politics.

He said it was “commendable that in today’s democratic societies, in a climate of true freedom, everyone is made a participant in directing the body politic.” The Cardinal wrote that by fulfilling their civic duties, “guided by a Christian conscience in conformity with its values, the lay faithful exercise their proper task of infusing the temporal order with Christian values, all the while respecting the nature and rightful autonomy of that order” and reminded the  “lay faithful are never to relinquish their participation in ‘public life’, that is, in the many different economic, social, legislative, administrative and cultural areas, which are intended to promote organically and institutionally the common good.

John Paul II had warned many times of the dangers which follow from confusion between the religious and political spheres. He urged the need for keeping “the distinction between the domains proper to religion and to political society. In practice, the identification of religious law with civil law can stifle religious freedom, even going so far as to restrict or deny other inalienable human rights”  He argued for the autonomy of the religious and secular spheres. 

While this general encouragement is given again and again, the Canon Law prohibits clergy to assume public offices which involve a participation in the exercise of civil power, whether in the legislature, presidency or judiciary. Can. 285 #2: “Clerics are forbidden to assume public office whenever it means sharing in the exercise of civil power.” Can. 287 #2: “They [clerics] are not to play an active role in political parties or in directing trade unions unless, in the judgment of the competent ecclesiastical authority, this is required for the defense of the rights of the Church or to promote the common good.”

Recently when Fr. Bismarque Dias announced his plans to stand for election in Goa, there has been a renewed interest in the question of priests in politics.  Though it is a fact that Bishops can be ambassadors, representatives of the Vatican State all over the world, and the Bishop of Rome is also the head of a sovereign state, the Vatican authorities have consistently opposed priests standing for election or holding public office whether it be in El Salvador, Haiti, Karnataka or anywhere else. It is obvious that the leaders definitely follow the Canon Law which is clear and unambiguous:

While the emphasis on Christian involvement is very clear and definite, why has there been another standard for the Clerics? Based on a misreading of some biblical passages the Catholic Church had for centuries shied away from involvement in politics and the material realm, restricting the Church’s role exclusively to the spiritual realm. One of the misunderstood passages is Mark 12.13-17, about paying taxes to the emperor. In the past many have argued from this text against the Church’s involvement in the material realm saying that the Church is at the service only of the spiritual realm and the State must look after the material realm.

For centuries the “church” meant the clerics. Since the Church’s mission is exclusively in the religious, spiritual realm, the clerics who represent the Church may not enter into politics which is of the secular sphere. Does this text teach this?  What actually is the text saying? It begins by saying that “”they sent to him [Jesus] some Pharisees and some Herodians to trap him” (MK12.13). Where is the trap? If he says, “Pay taxes” those who are nationalists would trap him; if he says “do not pay taxes” those who are loyal to Rome would trap him. What did he really say? He told them “Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s”. And what are the things of the emperor?  “Whose head is this and whose title? – Jesus said very clearly to give to the emperor what belongs to him, namely his “head and the title”. They saw the point immediately “And they were utterly amazed at him” (Mk 12.17).

He was not making a division between the spiritual and the material realms; he was not telling them to pay or not to pay taxes but simply to give to the emperor his head and title he has imprinted on the coin which belongs to God and therefore to the people of the land. Everything, except sin, belongs to God. But the Church leaders down the centuries have seen here a division of the material and the spiritual, and concluded that the Church (read: clerics) is to be at the service only of the spiritual realm. Jesus made no such division. Another misunderstood passage is Jn 18.36 which used to be translated as: my kingdom is not of this world, though the text says, my kingdom is not from this world, as it is from the Father’s love.

Seeing the role of the priest exclusively as something spiritual, dealing with the altar, worship, with the “sacred” is not coming from Jesus nor the New Testament for Jesus had not established such a ‘cultic, sacred’ priesthood.  In his mind the leaders he left behind were to lead the community by their service, “to look after the sheep”, to build up the community, as Paul puts it.

Whatever helps build up the community was to be the realm of the leaders’ activity. In today’s world actual participation in the political life of the nation seems to be an important area where a priest needs to be involved, as policies are made and decisions are taken in the public sphere, in politics. This affects everybody and hence for the leaders of the community to be totally absent in that sphere does not seem proper. Since the priest represents the Church in the public eye, it is fitting that some priests be involved in such matters. Even Jesus’ actions and words had political implications, though he was not a politician.

What do we say about the stand taken by Fr Bismarque Dias? I think we need to support him. He says he is not looking for wealth or position, but for a better means to serve the people and the country.  “I have no bank account. I will have to open one for the election. I have no money, no vote banks, but I will be the voice of my people:” He has been actively involved in social action and empowering the people. His move is seen as quite unusual in Goa.  He is fully aware that his decision has put the Goa Catholic Church in an embarrassing situation, but as he told The Hindu, “I will go ahead as I am convinced I am doing the right thing. I will not back out.” Jesus and Gandhi are his inspiration. 

“I know this is a critical juncture, Goa is losing something; I shall bring new energy to politics. I am doing this to gain power to serve the people. If good Catholics were there to take care of concerns in the political system I would not enter politics. If the Church were to take a firm stand on environmental issues and issues of the poor people’s struggle to save their agri-lands, I would not enter elections.”

 Politicians have turned into criminals and we cannot continue to watch helplessly when people are looking for alternatives,” he says. He explains that while taking up issues of the people with government departments, what struck him was the massive corruption, total lack of transparency and the complete disdain for people. This is what made him decide to fight the elections.  As everyone knows today politics is taken over mostly by crooks and selfish leaders, if a good Christian can be present in such a sphere and hopefully function as a good Christian and a good politician who has the peoples’ interest in mind, then that would be a great service.

Obviously the canon law makes sense if it is talking about a parish priest who is in charge of a particular parish where there could be members of various political parties; if he becomes a party member he would not serve the cause of building up the Body of Christ, the community, which is the primary task of the priest. His participation in politics can cause division and would not help the community. I am not suggesting that all priests should enter politics; but if one or the other feels that he can serve the country better in this way, he should be supported.                        Credit to Indian Currents, 19/2/12 Delhi   

 (The author is founder & dean of the first  Regional Jesuit Theologate and  regional seminary in Gujarat and its dean for nearly 16 years,  teaching seminarians, conducting seminars and retreats for priests and sisters. Being a theologian and sought after speaker at international conferences he is a regular visitor to countries in Europe, Americas and Africa.)

Join WhatsApp News
മലയാളത്തില്‍ ടൈപ്പ് ചെയ്യാന്‍ ഇവിടെ ക്ലിക്ക് ചെയ്യുക