Dear Prof Borges, Without getting waylaid by any flame-bait, I'd like to state the following:
* Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant by "Goan bishops". I took it to mean bishops of Goa, while you meant bishops of Goan origin. * For argument sake: if not all the bishops of Goa themselves trace their origin to the Brahmin caste, how could all the bishops of Goan origin (of which the former is a subset) be "Bamon"? At the same time, why exclude the most prominent member of this list (Cardinal Valerian Gracias) on grounds that he was Karachi born? Do we create exceptions just to prove our argument? This is good for rhetorics, but I think we're confusing the issue further. * Since I don't wish to get caught up in what I see as the minor issues and details here, I simply stand by the main thrust of my earlier points, which was: (i) Are caste origins more important than the role played by a particular individual? (ii) Were both Bamons and Chardos themselves not excluded from the Catholic priesthood in Goa at one stage of our colonial history? (iii) Don't we have individuals fighting caste within the Church itself in today's Goa? (iv) Has it been the institution of the Catholic Church itself that has supported caste, or individuals within the institution in Goa and some other parts of India? (v) If we are really against casteism, as we claim to be, then shouldn't we welcome the sub-alternisation of the Catholic clergy, a process which is underway and should hopefully change the attitude of the Church and its pastors in the not-too-distant future? These are serious concerns. But why only waddle in the cesspool of the past, instead of looking hopefully to the future? FN FN +91-832-2409490 or +91-9822122436 [email protected]
