THE DEBASING OF HISTORY AND TRUTH. Averthanus L. D'Souza. When an historian shows scant regard for facts, he not only debases his profession but he also loses his credibility. Interpretations and conclusions which are drawn from inaccurate data are bound to be erroneous. In spite of pointing to several factual inaccuracies in his previous articles in the Herald, the indomitable (so-called) historian continues to makes assertions which are factually incorrect. He has referred to this writer as a 'journalist' and then, in an unprofessional and uncouth manner, proceeded to slander all journalists in his latest contribution "Nothing Need Worry the Church of Goa" (Herald, June 20). As was pointed out earlier, an historian is expected to verify his facts before setting pen to paper. If this pseudo-historian had cared to do so he would have discovered that this writer was never ever a journalist, is not now a journalist and never will be counted among that distinguished fraternity. If this writer contributes columns to several periodicals (including the Herald, Goa) and websites, this does not make him a journalist any more than a doctor who writes a medical column or a nutritionist who contributes a regular column become ipso facto journalists. The latest article under critical review "Nothing Need Worry the Church of Goa" is itself an excellent example of irresponsible journalism which richly deserves the denunciation made by its author: "Perhaps only journalists can claim competence in every field they report on. That is why we have so very few of them who are truly competent and worth their salt." The denunciation applies, a forteriori, to pseudo-historians.
One of the hallmarks of a pseudo-historian is his attempt to deny his error and proceed to heap opprobrium on the one who has demonstrated his error. The notable historical gaffe in designating the All India Seminar on The Church in India Today, 1969 as a Synod is an indisputable instance of avoiding the truth, nay of even twisting it to suit his own purpose. As an ex-clergyman this pseudo-historian should know what a Synod is, and if he did not know, he was expected, as a (supposed) historian, to find out the difference between a Synod and a Seminar. Furthermore, as a gentleman and one who respects the rules of debate, he should have simply acknowledged this faux-pas instead of ranting about "a contestant rubbing his hands with glee over scoring a point." This is a debate about a serious issue - not a football match in which either side seeks to score points - and when an opponent points out to a glaring factual error good manners and good grace require that this error be acknowledged. Talking about football, the article "Nothing Need Worry the Church of Goa" looks very much like a football game in which not only is the ball changed intermittently, but one in which our player constantly changes the rules of the game to suit his own purpose. The crux of the matter being discussed is whether the material assets of the Church in Goa (please note that it is the Church "in" Goa and not the Church "of" Goa, (a distinction, again, as an ex-clergyman this contributor is expected to understand) are being administered in such a manner that the good of the community is respected. In my riposte (in the Herald of June 13) to his previous article I had pointed out that the Rules and Regulations of Fabricas/Cofres as well as the General Statutes of Confraternities of the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman are easily and readily available to anyone who desires to have them. In spite of this information being provided, the author of this article under critical review persists in grinding his masala, as if the authorities are hiding these documents from the laity. It will be interesting to know who appointed (or elected) him as their spokesman. The questions which were asked in my previous article "Satyameva Jayate" (Herald June 13) still remain unanswered. What is the real interest of the author in this matter? (given that he is not a resident of Goa); what is his locus standi ? And what are his unstated motives in opening this can of worms? Now that he has exonerated the Commissioner for NRI Affairs of the Government of Goa as the agent provocateur for his original article "The Political Economy of the Church" he once again seeks to deflect attention from this core issue by introducing new referees like retired Justice K.T. Thomas and Economist Amartya Sen, supported by some minor local minions. His quotations from Justice K.T. Thomas about non-discrimination against Christians and the security of Christians, are totally irrelevant to the issue being debated - so what is the point of dragging in Justice Thomas into this present debate? And what on earth does Amartya Sen's views on humanising the economy by sustaining and promoting freedom and democracy have to do with the original accusation made by the author against the Church in Goa in regard to the administration of its finances and properties? The administration of the material assets of the Church are governed by Canon Law, which, hopefully, this ex-clergyman is aware of ! The Rules and Regulations of Fabricas/Cofres of The Archdiocese of Goa and Daman are in conformity with Canon Law - specially Canons 1281 to 1288 in respect of Parishes. The demand that "What we need in Goa at this moment is a frank debate with wide participation, churchmen included, about how an inadequate administration of the Church wealth can fail to fulfil the promises of the Indian Constitution" is both ill-timed and absurd. The Synod of the Archdiocese of Goa already discussed this in February 2002. The Rules and Regulations referred to are a result of this Synod. Like Rip van Winkle our pseudo-historian wakes up seven years later to demand a general debate. Moreover, his demand is patently absurd because he desires that the administration of the assets of the Church should "fulfil the promises of the Indian Constitution." (sic). This pseudo-historian appears to be totally out of touch with reality. He is demonstrably also out of touch with both ecclesiology and with comparative Law. The relationship between Canon Law and Civil Law is too complex a subject to be brought into the present debate. Instead of giving us inane (and unsolicited) lessons on the difference between veneration and respect, he should hasten to brush up on the fundamentals of historical research. Historiography is not a matter of speculation like astrology. It has gained acceptance as a Social Science and has developed its own proper methods and principles. This pseudo-historian started this (unnecessary) debate with his provocative article "The Political Economy of the Church" which had neither a clear focus nor a clear purpose - except, perhaps, to denigrate the Church in Goa. When challenged about his motives, he shifted the grounds of the debate to an abstruse (and irrelevant) "Dare not Silence the Truth". When pushed further into a corner about his own intellectual and professional integrity, he responded with a placatory (but still unsatisfactory) "Nothing Need Worry the Church of Goa." Being aware that he was treading on unstable ground he took shelter behind the reputations of Cicero and the Commissioner for NRI Affairs of the Government of Goa. When his arguments were demolished he proceeded to conscript Justice K.T. Thomas and Economist Amartya Sen, neither of whom, however, could substantiate his wild and reckless allegation that the administration of the properties and the finances of the Church in Goa violated either the Code of Canon Law or the legal requirements of the Indian Constitution. Instead of persisting in this futile attempt to prove the Church guilty of his charges, he should gracefully set this controversy at rest and turn his attention to more fruitful pursuits within the areas of his own competence. Averthanus L. D'Souza, Dona Paula, Goa 403 004. e-mail [email protected]
