By George Shining Lyngkhoi
This article is written in the context of the write up, “Church Leaders and Their Impact on Our Lives” by Diana Mary Pala (ST 26/10/’13). First of all, I must appreciate Ms Pala for her ability to call a spade a spade. Probably, her concerns are also the concerns of many. I would like to present a few thoughts based on my personal experiences and observations on the views put forward the above mentioned author.
Though the title is clear, in the article ‘Church and her leaders’ as mentioned by Ms Pala, for many, the terms, ‘Church leaders’, ‘Priests and Religious’ and ‘Church’ are one and the same. It will be helpful to clarify these terms before we discuss further. When we say ‘Church leaders’, in the Catholic Church it naturally means bishops, priests, religious and the lay people who are in leadership; in the case of other Christian Churches it, probably, means Pastors, Church Elders and other leaders. The term ‘Church’, however, includes every member of a particular Church. So, when we say ‘Church’ it means everyone of which the laity are a majority.
In the article, it appears that Ms Pala has dealt exclusively with the priests and religious of the Catholic Church. My knowledge affirms what Ms Pala had read about ‘monastic life’. Religious life began with ‘the monastic life’ where young people who were fed up with the hustle and bustle of city life went to settle in the desert or wilderness and spent time in prayer and penance. They ran away from the world to lead a holy life. However, as centuries passed another thought pattern came in: ‘why not get involved in serving the society rather than running away from it’. Thus, monks and nuns began to serve the people leading an active life. Though there are, even today, religious congregations which are completely contemplative, most of the religious congregations are active in contemplation (service and prayer). It is perhaps this ‘service’ orientation of the religious people that give room to such critical observation made by Ms Pala; and I believe she has the right to do so. If the religious of today were contemplative monks and nuns, they wouldn’t fall under the purview; but the fact that they are here in the society for service, such questions are always valid.
However, Ms Pala seems to stretched her arguments too far and could mislead the readers. The author stated, “Christian missionaries and mission run schools and colleges play a vital role in the intellectual development of the people but not in the socio-economic uplift of the weaker sections of the society.” If we look around in the city of Shillong itself there are numerous projects and institutions run by religious men and women for the poor and weaker sections of society. Children from poor families are cared for and educated even in the locality where I am staying. When we look at the rural areas the people turn to priests and religious for their needs. Where I come from, most of the school teachers and village leaders are supported and educated by the Christian missionaries. They, in their turn, empower the village and society where they live in. Many influential people in Shillong and other towns who come from villages are supported by the missionaries; they would willingly admit this. There are numerous persons in Meghalaya who are self reliant today because of the help received from the missionaries. Definitely, the latter have empowered and are still empowering the weaker sections of the society.
Ms Pala also mentions that Church run schools and colleges are not charitable because “a student who fails to clear the monthly tuition fees before due date does not get his/her admit card or the result is withheld until he/she pays the school fees.” While it is true that such institutions exist, is it right to derecognize the charity done in other missionary schools? There are hundreds of schools run by Christian missionaries which do not have any monthly or tuition fees; except a minimal entry fee at the beginning of the year. Students in these schools do not even know the meaning of ‘tuition fee’. Besides other pastoral works, these missionaries labour day and night to sustain these schools. In other aspects of life too, there are priests and religious caring for sick people; especially the poor. They would bring them to the hospitals and pay their bills. I meet such people sent or brought by priests for treatment in Shillong because they cannot afford it on their own. These are not just isolated incidents; there are missionaries who still render services sacrificing their time, energy and even their health. Most of the dispensaries which run smoothly in the rural areas are managed by religious. They toil heart and soul to maintain those dispensaries without counting the cost. So, Ms Pala’s comment that ‘the priest and religious of our society have time only to run around efficient lawyers and auditors’ is not justified. Even if there are such people, is it correct to generalize?
A few weeks ago some newspapers published about Fr. Patrick Warjri SDB, a Khasi missionary to Argentina. The people of Mawlai-Mawroh wished the family well and were appreciative that their son had done them proud. Fr. Patrick toiled for many years in one of the parishes in Pentagonia; he took initiatives to improve the lives of the local people. Thus, during the Jubilee Year of the parish, the political leader of the area named a street after Fr. Patrick in appreciation of his contributions. Were Fr Patrick to do the same here in Meghalaya we would not have taken notice of the good he does. The lament, “Gone is the golden era when the monks and religious people lived a life of austerity and true to the call that they received from above” is also too generalized. It may not be the ‘golden era’ of monastic life, but even today there are religious who lead an austere life-style and who remain true to their calling. Just because we have not met one, it does not mean that there is none.
Ms Pala may have her reasons, but the statement that maximum profits are transferred to the headquarters for the comforts of the provincials and superiors is definitely questionable. There may be policies followed in regulating schools, colleges and institutions but to say ‘bargaining’ for the comforts of superiors is, probably too exaggerated. Secondly, is it correct to allege that principals in the cities make compromises? And, is it true that those zealous missionaries working in the far-flung villages are in exile for rebelling against their superiors? How come they work with such joy, enthusiasm and satisfaction? People in exile should have shown a different temperament. Having said this, it appears to me that the vast majority of priests and religious do not look for power and positions. They work happily wherever and whatever is assigned to them. Even amongst those who are working as principals and headmasters in towns and cities, not many really crave for positions.
Another point I would like to make is that priests and religious come from within our society and not from heaven. They have their weaknesses as we all have. It is true, as Ms Pala mentioned that in the Old Testament, prophets were called to challenge the people against injustices and atrocities. The priests of today are also specially called and chosen to be prophets of the present society; yet they are fragile men and women like any of us. In their effort to transcend political, sociological, racial and societal issues, at times they fail.
While pointing fingers at others, it is, important to introspect where the other three fingers are pointing. Everyone is called to build a better society and a better world; to alleviate someone’s pain and misery. It is a universal call. Regarding preaching without practice by the Church leaders, I believe the best policy is to follow what Jesus had advised his followers: “You must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach” (Mt. 23:3). (The author can be contacted at [email protected]