On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Santosh Helekar wrote: > that the Catholic Church had nothing to do with the inquisition. It > had nothing to do with the destruction of temples and building of > churches in their place. No church was built in the exact spot where a > temple once stood. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with forcible > conversions. Actually, there were no forcible conversions. Those who > got converted did so willingly by undergoing a change in their minds > and hearts.
I broadly agree with the need to face up to inconvenient aspects of the past. At the same time, one hsa to be careful not to get caught up in traps that could be used in a situation where a religious polarisation is the main basis of fighting electoral battles in today's Goa. Santosh, would you concede that the *Catholic Church* is an evolving organisation. Though the current Church is a direct successor to a 2000-year-old legacy, it is quite different in approach and intent from Church in the 'sixteenth or 'seventeenth century? For that matter, wouldn't you view the pre-1961 Church as different from that of today? Factors like access to power, the equation with the rulers... these play a crucial role in the history of any religious grouping. One could further argue that the Catholic Church in Rome or Bavaria is different from that in Goa or Jabhua or Beijing. My belief is that quite some element of force, together with opportunity, was critical factors in the conversions that took place in the 'sixteenth and probably 'seventeenth centuries. (Though maybe not in the 'eighteenth or 'nineteenth ... the historians could enlighten us better.) Today, the descendents of even those converted by force seem quite content in being part of the religious grouping. The Catholic-origin freedom fighters of 20th Century Goa who had were devout atheists ;-) like T B Cunha and others, had a problem with the then close nexus between the colonial state and the Church. The aboriginal population (who became the Nav-Hindu Gawadas in the 1920s) felt deprived on account of the low social and economic status they were trapped in, despite conversions. The Arya Samaj's Suddhi movement also in part explains the *supply side* of the then-perceived *solution*. Generally, the trend towards the secularisation of society, or political perspectives, has, as in the West, led to some opting out. So has a shift towards the new *sects*, as they have been called here. But I don't think the question of *force* remains an issue today. While this is undeniably true sometimes, it is obviously a little-understood phenomenon... even as it perhaps becomes a *politically correct* explanation for conversions today. The Hindutva agenda against *forced conversions* (is *divine displeasure* also *use of force* ... and if so what happens to a monotheistic religion which, theologically, belives that there's just one true God?) might also be skewing up the debate in one direction. I do understand and appreciate the point Dr Santosh is making. All that I'm saying is that there are finer intracacies which might not be so apparent at first hand. FN ########################################################################## # Send submissions for Goanet to [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # PLEASE remember to stay on-topic (related to Goa), and avoid top-posts # # More details on Goanet at http://joingoanet.shorturl.com/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others # ##########################################################################
