Mutual respect and esteem

But doesn’t it smack of arrogance for the Vatican to claim that every other path to God is false? Not just Hinduism or Judaism, but other Christian denominations too?

On the fifth of September, the Vatican published a 36-page document called ‘Dominus Jesus’. Bearing the signatures of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, it was approved by the Pope himself. We, in India, celebrate the day on which this text was released as ‘Teachers’ Day’, but I am not sure that we would wish to learn the lessons of ‘Dominus Jesus’.

The document cannot be accused of beating around the bush. It is firmly opposed to ‘‘realativistic theories’’ which suggest all religions are equal. These are denounced as ‘‘erroneous or ambiguous opinions’’. The third chapter emphasises that salvation can come to mankind only through the redemptive power of Jesus Christ; more,‘‘the fullness of means to salvation’’ can be found only in the Catholic Church.’’ (An exception of sorts is made for the orthodox sects, but none for the Protestant.)

Cardinal Ratzinger was asked whether this didn’t smack of ‘‘fundamentalism’’. If there is no common ground between religions, what becomes of the effort for a dialogue between faiths? The Cardinal was uncompromising; such dialogue, he said, should not be ‘‘a substitute for missionary activity and for the urgency of an appeal to conversion’’. He reiterated the Church’s opposition to any ‘‘false idea of tolerance’’ which allows respect for other beliefs because it rejects the possibility of any objective truth.

I have no quarrel with the Pope’s declaration that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. He is free, as is every man and woman, to say what he believes to be correct. But does it not smack of arrogance to claim that every other path to God is a false trail? Not just Hinduism or Judaism, for instance, but other Christian denominations as well?

Dr George Carey, archbishop of Canterbury, was particularly offended at the statement that: ‘‘Ecclesial communities that have not preserved the valid episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery are not churches in the proper sense’’. This, the Anglican leader said, fails to represent ‘‘the deeper understanding that has been achieved through ecumenical dialogue’’.

The Vatican was unruffled by this and similar angry reactions. Archbishop Marcello Zago admitted that the Vatican’s missionary activities had roused opposition in Asia — particularly Hindus in India and Muslims in Indonesia and elsewhere. But, he stated, the missionary activity of the Church required a drive to convert all people to the true faith. ‘‘Fighting for justice or to overcome hunger are aspects connected with mission. But at times there is a lack of that balance which always places at the center of any missionary activity, living the Gospel of Jesus Christ and proclaiming him to others.’’

It also appears that the princes of the Church believe that missionary activity is a one-way street. Cardinal Giacomo Biffi is high in the Vatican’s hierarchy, and his name pops up when the current Pope’s successor is discussed. He has publicly called for every mosque in Italy to be shut down; Muslims, he says, should not be permitted to worship in Italy as long as Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations prevented Christians from practising their faith.

This is a bit of a dilemma, is it not? Or should I say a challenge to secularism? That concept has become second cousin to plasticine in some Indian hands. A Maharashtrian friend told me of the VVIP who declared at a Ganesha Chaturthi function that the festival epitomised ‘secularism’! With friends like that, it does not need enemies to become the laughing stock of India.

Let us, however, try to rescue secularism from the grave which its ardent supporters insist on digging for it. There can, I think, only be two real conceptions of secularism. First, it can mean a complete separation between religion and government, not contempt but disinterest. Second, and this is how we in India have chosen to define it, secularism can be an equal respect for all faiths.

But — this is the nub — respect has to be a two-way street. You cannot expect respect, nor even a hands-off attitude, if you persist in denigrating my faith. Dr Radhakrishnan described Hinduism as: ‘‘A movement, not a position. A process, not a result. A growing tradition, not a fixed revelation.’’ That is the antithesis of the uncompromising attitude adopted by the latest declaration from the Vatican.

The problem was recognised decades ago by the historian Arnold Toynbee. He discussed it briefly in a preface written for the Britannia Perspectives. (Aside to bibliophiles: if you can find a copy, buy it — it was written to celebrate the Encyclopedia Britannica’s second centenary, and there is no point waiting for the third one in 2068!) Here is a brief excerpt from the conclusion of the essay:
‘‘There may or may not be only one single absolute truth and only one single ultimate way of salvation. We do not know. But we do know that there are more approaches to truth than one, and more means of salvation than one.’’

‘‘This is a hard saying for adherents of the higher religions of the Judaic family (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), but it is a truism for Hindus. The spirit of mutual good-will, esteem, and veritable love ... is the traditional spirit of the religions of the Indian family. This is one of India’s gifts to the world.’’ Professor Toynbee was writing in 1968, an era that encouraged free thought and experimentation. Attitudes have hardened since then; if there is any ‘‘mutual good-will’’ or ‘‘esteem’’ for other faiths in ‘Dominus Jesus’ then I for one have missed it.

The publication of ‘Dominus Jesus’ should not be made an occasion to demand that Indian Christians prove their patriotism. But I do have a request: Respect my faith as I do yours. If that is asking too much, stop denigrating it. Secularism, please remember, is not a burden to be borne by Hindus alone.

Earlier Columns