Questions before the Church: the wealth of the religious By Augusto Pinto [email protected] or [email protected]
Dr. Teotonio De Souza's article "The Political Economy of the Church" -- see http://bit.ly/fyG7q, and Herald 23-05-2009 -- is a trenchant critique of the Church in Goa. De Souza suggests that the vast amount of property and money in the hands of the Church should be better handled by making the administration of this institution more broad-based and democratic. But there are other issues, perhaps equally important which have been raised. He examines for instance, the relationship between the State and the religious institutions -- including Hindu temples -- in Goa and suggests they should be accountable to the past as well as to the future. The laws governing such institutions like the Lei de Confrarias and Lei de Mazanias were made in Portuguese times and still are in force. De Souza suggests that there is need for reflection and debate on these by our citizens, before someone clumsily alters them without thinking about the resulting chaos that may ensue. That Dr. De Souza was critical of the Church in the past too is evident from the references in his article. One suspects the Church chose not to respond then and preferred to ride out the storm. Perhaps this method of sitting out criticism was possible earlier when one could control the media directly or indirectly. But this is a dubious strategy in the age of electronic communication, where it does not take anyone to do more than a copy-paste operation to repeat any charges one chooses ad nauseum on a host of blog sites and mailing lists. After a while these cannot be ignored by the more conventional media like newspapers and television. Hence the issues raised by Dr. De Souza should be treated seriously for an ostrich-like head-in-the-sand attitude is unwise on the part of the Goan Church. And surely to be forewarned is to be forearmed. It is good that he voices his concerns in public, for in the internal fora of religious institutions, independent voices tend to be quickly stifled. Before proceeding further, an understanding of the functioning of the Church in property matters may help to understand the issues involved. Sociologist Alito Sequeira gave me a potted history of Goan Church administration. In colonial times, the village Churches owned the property which was controlled and administered by a body called the Fabrica. The parish priest and the Archdiocese had a limited say. During that time all the Church institutions were largely controlled by upper caste men. After Liberation, the Fabrica has had its wings clipped and the Archdiocese has seen its powers enhanced with respect to control over property rights. They have registered societies and trusts where priests hold controlling interests and so now Church property too is "private property" of the respective registered societies and trusts. The lay people do participate in the Church functioning through Parish Councils but these are just recommendatory bodies where appointments need to be approved by the parish priest. The Church does not believe in democracy but in hierarchy. Everyone down to the smallest functionary is appointed. Therefore each functionary needs be accountable only to the one above him. Sequeira suggests that in Goa the hierarchical domination of Church property coupled with the concentration of power in some upper-caste Catholic groups and especially the Catholic Brahmins led to much resentment among others. The Chaddos were their main competitors. Currently, from a legal standpoint, churches and other religious institutions in Goa do not have fears about relinquishing their property to the State. Except if the State intervenes. Religious institutions like the Church should not delude themselves into thinking that the State can never intervene. For in India the State can always intervene as the Right to Property is not a Fundamental Right. And historically, the entitlement of the Church and Hindu temples to property rests not upon Peter's rock, but upon very sandy foundations. For one should remember that the colonial laws which governed institutions like churches and temples are still in place. Of course, if at all the State does intervene a host of Constitutional and legal issues will crop up. For instance, Sequeira informs me that if the law of the rest of India is applied to Church property then while the traditional personal customs of the Church may govern decisions relating to ritual, some State-appointed managers may run the financial show. Such a solution may be worse than the problem as it is well known how honest State managers can be in property matters. Besides Goan institutions have evolved differently from from the rest of India. Would it not be best then to seek out uniquely Goan solutions? Sooner or later the State may try to intervene in spite of opposition. Given the amount of wealth that these religious institutions control the stakes are so high that it may decide to bulldoze its way into acquiring the Church property. Teotonio De Souza indicates that the writing is there on the wall by pointing out that in States like Kerala and Madhya Pradesh they have already started this process. Will not the government in Goa take their cue from them? If the Church is not transparent about the way they manage the property in their possession, then all kinds of questions will begin to be asked about them. The government will begin to ask whether the huge sums of money that the Church bodies collected have been properly accounted for. For the Church is a tax payer too. They will ask how valuable heritage pieces costing much have disappeared. They will ask how plots of land which were gifted to religious institutions have landed in the hands of private developers, to the aggrandisement of a few pious souls. They will ask why Church institutions which accept the largess of the State in various forms should not be accountable to it. And perhaps point out that as per the colonial laws which are still in force they are in fact still accountable to the State. The wealth of the religious institutions were not exactly gifted by God, and the State is well aware of this. This came largely from the community i.e. the Communidade, the State (who gifted confiscated property to the churches) and from the public at large through donations. Churches also took over a lot of property from the temples in the 16th and 17th century, although those who owned the churches were the same people who owned the temples, so it was at least always partly, if not always fully, their own property. Surely the government will want to seize religious properties if they can. And to what use will they then put the wealth they seize? Will it be in the hands of more or less trustworthy people? Knowing how they have destroyed the Communidades, prevention by religious institution is better than cure. Perhaps it is time that they keep their houses in better order by making their foundations more broad-based as Teotonio suggests. The Church has not officially commented so far on Teotonio's essay, and may not openly comment in the press unless the going gets too hot. However they will probably respond covertly from the pulpit or through individuals close to them. Already some comments have been appearing in the press which indicate what the tone of their arguments will be. Instead of introspection on the issues raised, they have chosen to launch personal attacks on De Souza. In my Herald letter,"Managing Social Capital" of May 30, I have already pointed out how Bernard Simoes in his letter in Herald May 28 tries to obfuscate the issues by calling him a "privileged renegade". This type of ad hominem attack lacks credibility as Dr. De Souza has done much more than anyone else to preserve some of what the past has handed down to us in his capacity as a historian and the founder of Xavier Center for Historical Research. Another person who appears to be close to the Church, Averthanus D'Souza, in Herald OPinionatED of May 29 questions the motives of Teotonio, besides abusing him ["Teotonio's Theatrics" is how he labels a serious essay]. He also prefers to completely mangle Teotonio's arguments. Where Teotonio warns of the danger of State intervention, Averthanus accuses him of supporting such an intervention! An interesting fact: Teotonio in his article had referred to the official website of the Church. After the article was published, the website of the archdiocese is now needs access with a login. It appears that instead of moving towards greater transparency they have become more defensive! Why is this sort of phobic reaction necessary? Perhaps the Roman Catholic Church feels it is under siege as not only is it being persecuted in several States, the numbers of its flock and its shepherds have been dwindling. Averthanus writes,"There are quite a number of anti-Catholic elements (even within the Church, it must be admitted) who are looking for ammunition to attack the Catholic Church; providing them with the ammunition (as Teotonio has done) can only be construed as being perfidious." This suggests that instead of democracy and transparency in the running of the religious institutions, Averthanus, and I suspect the Church as well as the Hindu religious institutions governed by the Lei de Mazanias, will prefer that whatever they do be best kept under wraps. This attitude is a suspect one. Being secretive suggests that people have unpleasant things to hide. This may be damaging to the institutions they pretend to protect. The issues raised by Teotonio have wider significance and are not restricted to just the Church. Implicitly the same charges against the Church can be made applicable to the Hindu temple committees of Mazanias and with even more relevance. But perhaps it would be better that this can of worms, which is even more complex and perhaps in even greater need of reform than the Church, is not opened by someone with a name like Augusto Pinto! ................................................................ This article was published in 2 parts in Herald, Goa on 5 and 6 June 2009. Author's contact: Augusto Pinto 40, Novo Portugal, Moira, Bardez, Goa, India E P 0832-2470336 M 9881126350
