SATYAMEVA JAYATE.
Averthanus L. D'Souza.
The vigorous defence of Truth in the lead article in Herald, (Saturday, 6
June,
2009) and specially the citing of the caveat of Pope Leo XIII at the time of
giving
access to research scholars to the (so called 'secret') Archives of the Vatican
is
most commendable indeed. The quotation from Cicero: "ne quid veri tacere
audeat"(
meaning dare not silence the truth) was specially impressive, indicating, as it
does
familiarity with the Roman classics. However, readers would have appreciated
being
told also that it was the same Cicero who loudly lamented: "Oh Truth! How many
falsehoods are told in thy name." Using the defence of truth as a subterfuge to
fortify one's untenable arguments might impress uncritical minds, but to those
with
keener minds, it evokes the scene in Pilate's Courtroom when he questioned
Jesus
about his credentials. When Jesus told him that he had come into the world "to
testify to the truth" (Jn. 18:37) Pilate snidely remarked: "What is truth?" and
turned away without waiting for a response. How apropos to this dialogue and
how
representative of those who presume to have special insights into truth. In his
very
enlightening book "What is History?" Prof. E.H. Carr cites the great liberal
journalist C.P. Scott: "Facts are sacred, opinion is free." Carr goes on to
observe
that: "In spite of C.P. Scott's motto, every journalist knows today that the
most
effective way to influence opinion is by the selection and arrangement of the
appropriate facts. It used to be said that facts speak for themselves. This is,
of
course, untrue. The facts speak only when the historian calls on them; it is he
who
decides to which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context. It was,
I
think, one of Pirandello's characters who said that a fact is like a sack - it
won't
stand up till you've put something in it." (E.H.Carr "What is History" Pelican
Books, 1964 pg.11)
The article under consideration (as well as the previous one) falls very
appropriately into this category. Let us take as an example the assertion (or
the
obvious insinuation) that the Church authorities in Goa hide information: "In
addition to the Pastoral Letter and some stray notes (sic) available online
about
those post-liberation updates, it could be helpful to all interested to have
the
full Statement of the Diocesan Synod (SDS) also online for consultation, and so
also
the new rules for the Confrarias as enacted in 2003. Such updated rule books
could
help promote greater transparency and collaboration of the faithful, and could
help
dispel some unwarranted doubts of the interested citizens." This statement
(falsely)
insinuates that the Archdiocese of Goa has not made available the full text of
the
Statement of the Diocesan Synod or the updated rules of the Confrarias. The
simple
fact is that these documents are freely and readily available to anyone who
desires
to have them. If the author of the article has not succeeded in accessing them
"on-line" he should not conclude that the authorities are suppressing the
information. It only means, probably, that the departments concerned are not au
courant with information technology. To ascribe ulterior motives is surely a
travesty of truth?
A prominent historian is expected to verify his facts before putting pen to
paper.
What he refers to as the "all-India Church synod of 1970" was certainly not a
"synod" in the accepted sense of the word, (and as an ex-cleric, he ought to
know
this). It was officially described as the "All India Seminar on The Church in
India
Today" and it took place in 1969 (not 1970).
The declaration that "None of my criticisms have or will ever be intended
against
any clergyman or other individuals, and I believe that those who resort to
personal
attacks only vitiate any good and useful debate" is well received. However, a
careful re-reading of my response to the original article "The Political
Economy of
the Church" will confirm that my arguments were directed to the opinions
expressed
by the author (including the questioning of his hidden motives!) - and not
against
the author's person. It is still my firm opinion that the author's
recommendation
(repeated in this present article) that the Government should "supervise the
Church
finances and properties" is totally ill-conceived and retrograde. In the
current
circumstances - economic and political - the Government itself is taking active
measures to "divest" itself of business and industrial activities. The buzz
word, as
everyone knows, is "disinvestment" and "privatization." For the author of the
article under review (and his misguided supporters) to propose, in this
context,
that the Government should take over the management of the temporal affairs of
churches, temples and mosques is clearly retrograde and even deplorable. The
solution they are proposing is infinitely worse than the alleged problems which
they
hope to solve.
Incidentally, the focus of the discussion seems to have become clearer - it is
not
the "Political Economy of the Church in India" (whatever that may mean!) but
the
administration of the temporal affairs of the Church in Goa which is the
subject of
concern. The unanswered questions still remain: what is the "real" interest of
the
author in this matter? What is his locus standi? And what are his "unstated"
motives? Since he is admittedly not resident in Goa, why is he so keen to offer
to
the Government all the finances and properties of the Church in Goa, even when
there
is not the slightest evidence to suggest that the Government is even remotely
interested in grabbing these material assets? He has asserted that "if the
Church
believes what it preaches - namely that it should give to Caesar what belongs
to
Caesar, it should only be too glad if it is helped to get rid of the over-catch
that
threatens to sink the boat of Peter or distract it from fulfilling its
spiritual
mission, unencumbered by excess of worldly baggage." This professed concern for
the
Church's spiritual wellbeing simply does not coincide with his emphatic
declaration:
"Let me also make it clear that I do not venerate any institutions on earth,
not
even those that claim divine origin."
What is very disturbing is that this author, wittingly or unwittingly, opened
up a
can of worms with his article "The Political Economy of the Church." To cover
up his
own ambivalence on this issue, he dragged in the Commissioner for NRI Affairs
(of
the Government of Goa) as a façade to provide him with the excuse to fire his
volley
against the Church (which, it should again be noted, he most emphatically does
not
venerate.) As I have contended before, there is no indication whatsoever that
the
Terms of Reference of the Commissioner for NRI Affairs of the Government of Goa
includes a study of the "Political Economy of the Church in India" - or of the
Church in Goa, for that matter.! The author explicitly acknowledges in his
article:
"To someone like me, a citizen of two countries, and familiar with the twofold
scenario . . ." Perhaps there is a downside to this dual (divided?) loyalty
which is
the cause of so much confusion in his mind. The metaphor of a rider straddling
two
horses at the same time, which are headed in divergent directions, is still
appropriate and remains relevant.
It may be strategically appealing to try to intimidate one's opponents by
moving to
'higher' intellectual grounds (and thus also subtly diverting the focus of the
debate) by titling one's essay "Dare not Silence the Truth." The psychological
advantage is in the implied suggestion that one's opponent is attempting to
silence
the truth - which is worse than exposing falsehood. But even the great St.
Augustine
did not write a treatise de Veracitate (on veracity), but rather he wrote a
treatise
on de Mendacio (on the nature of falsehood). Today's world is infested with
pseudo
"intellectuals" who are trying to manipulate the truth to serve their own
nefarious
purposes. Falsehood has been enthroned. It has ordained its own clergy to serve
it.
However, as the Sanskrit sloka declares: Truth will always prevail - Satyameva
Jayate.
=end=
Averthanus L. D'Souza,
Dona Paula, Goa 403 004.
e-mail [email protected]
