On 26 Aug 2013 Frederick FN Noronha <[email protected]> wrote:
1.<< Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant by "Goan bishops". I took it to mean bishops of Goa, while you meant bishops of Goan origin.>> Glad that you now understand the difference between "bishops of Goa" (of European descent, until 1961) and "Goan bishops" (of Indian descent). 2.<< 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"?>> I hope at least you understand what you have written here. Let me explain: (a) "Bamon" is the Konkani equivalent of "Brahmin" and is the term that Catholic Brahmins use to describe themselves; for example, a prominent priest I know proudly declares, "Hanv Bamonn!". (b) A set is a group all of whose members share some characteristics which are distinct from those of the members of another set. (c) A subset of a set is a group whose members bear only some of the characteristics of the members of the set. Here we have two sets of bishops: (A) Bishops of the Goa Diocese or "Bishops of Goa", (B) "Goan bishops" of Indian origin. (C) Bishops of goa after 1961. Until 1961, no Goan bishop became Bishop of Goa and No Bishop of Goa was a Goan. Therefore, till then, one of these sets (A, B) cannot be a subset of the other. However, the three post-1961 Bishops of Goa are also Goan (Indian) by blood i.e. they are Goan bishops. This means that C forms a subset of both the sets A and b. Therefore, post-1961 the two sets A and B intersect, with the three members belonging to both. Now, please see whether your statement makes any sense at all. 3.<< why exclude the most prominent member of this list (Cardinal Valerian Gracias) on grounds that he was Karachi born?>> He was able to scale the ecclesiastical ladder not because he was born in Karachi (he would have done that even if he were born in Goa) but because he studied and joined a seminary in Karachi i.e. outside the ambit of the bamon-infested Padroado. He was ordained priest in 1926; please find out how many Sudirs were ordained in Goa by that date. 4.<<Do we create exceptions just to prove our argument? This is good for rhetorics, but I think we're confusing the issue further.>> The exception as well as confusion is all of your making. 5.<< Are caste origins more important than the role played by a particular individual?>> The two are entirely different issues; so why create confusion by clubbing them together? 6.<< Were both Bamons and Chardos themselves not excluded from the Catholic priesthood in Goa at one stage of our colonial history?>> We are told that Andre Vaz, a Chardo from Carambolim was ordained in 1560. We also know that the fifth Council of Goa (1606) had decreed that no low caste Indian was to be admitted to the priesthood. So, could you please cite the period in our colonial history during which Bamons and Chardos were excluded from the Catholic priesthood in Goa? And the reason for this belief of yours? 7.<< Don't we have individuals fighting caste within the Church itself in today's Goa?>> We do! But we also have cases of such priests being assaulted by upper caste individuals even within the precincts of a church. 8.<< 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?>> Both. The decree of the fifth Council of Goa (1606) cited supra should help you to answer this. 9.<< 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?>> Are you asking me or yourself? Either way, the following two instances, which I am posting for the third time in so many days, should help you to find an answer to your question: A Kunnbi boy from a neighbouring ward (grandson of Kumbiabhat) was determined to become a priest. But, for whatever reason, he was expelled from the Seminary. He joined an Order, but was hounded out from there as well. He tried several Orders with the same result. His brother had committed suicide, and I do not know whether this was held against him. But, finally, he did succeed with an Order that does not have representation in Goa. However, he was refused Ordination at his own parish church (Velim). Even our Archbishop having declined, the Ordination Ceremony was performed at Old Goa by the Bishop of Bangalore! On that occasion, he did relate his tribulations on the way to the Altar. This happened two years ago. Once I enquired (telephonically) about this case from a priest friend at the Seminary, a Bamon. What he said is instructive; his opinion was that "they" are uncouth, "they" lack in manners and hence not suitable for priesthood. The second case is from Raia and was reported by Marcos Gonsalves in Gulab Konkani monthly about a year ago. This boy was persecuted so systematically that a complaint would reach every Seminary that he joined, within months! Thus thwarted, he was driven to suicide. But friends and relatives managed to dissuade him from taking such a drastic step, and he has gone to work in the Gulf. 10.<< But why only waddle in the cesspool of the past, instead of looking hopefully to the future?>> Wonderful suggestion worthy of a standing ovation. Let us eschew all discussion of historical facts, especially those not palatable to us, and concentrate exclusively on future hopes and the utopia of our dreams. Sebastian Borges
