Bishops, Communists and Sacraments

It is really painful to watch and listen to the controversy between the Clergy and Marxist Party surrounding the truth or otherwise of the “last sacrament” claimed to have been administered to late Sri. Mathai Chacko, MLA. I am particularly annoyed because Mathai Chacko was my personal friend whose rise in Kerala Politics was of great interest to me. Religion and politics apart, he was a fine individual who practiced what he preached. The attempt on the part of the clergy to depict him otherwise was what irked most people.

Mathai Chacko did not believe in Heaven and Hell, nor did he recognize the need for prayers. I had met him in his hospital room a couple of months before he went unconscious. We did not talk much, but his firm resolve to fight the disease with available medical tools and weapons had not diminished in the least. It is unimaginable that such a person buries his convictions and calls the priest for getting anointed. Now it is fairly clear from the written statement of the Bishop that no such sacrament was administered to Chacko in his consciousness. We all know that it is the practice of Religion to make such claims; and even Einstein was not spared from such propaganda. The present confusion does not stem from facts or sequence of events, but from the rivalry between two great religions of the world, Christianity and Communism.

People are usually “born-into” a religion, not of their own accord. Every child, immediately after birth is counted in, as a Hindu, Muslim, Christian or any other permitted sect. Such head-count is useful in designating electoral constituencies as “belonging” to a specific religion or community. Thus, in a geographical sense (see Bertrand Russell) Mathai Chacko could be counted as a Catholic, although it may not entitle him to heavenly bliss available to real practicing Catholics. It is in the interest of the Church and its constituents that everyone is given all sacraments, including the last one. This interest of the Church is logical and praiseworthy because someone who dies without the last sacrament might end up in Hell. It is this lofty ideal of securing for everyone a seat in the Heaven that prompts priests to go out of the way to administer this piece of ritual even on unconscious patients in deathbeds. Those who remember history would recall that Spaniards used to baptize every South American (pagan) child before squashing its head and throwing in the disposal pit. The Spanish clergymen sincerely believed this was an admirable thing to do, as the innocent pagan children would otherwise languish in Hell.

Pinarayi Vijayan, as the High Priest of Communism obviously does not admit of sacraments. Of course they too have rituals like throwing up the fist (vertically or horizontally as the occasion demands) and saying Lal Salaam (Lal is Hindi, meaning Red and Salaam Arabic, meaning submission; but that is beside the point) which have no objective like securing a heavenly abode for its practitioners. It is only natural that he doesn’t tolerate one of his men being designated as a Lamb of the Bishop. He fails to recognize the Church’s lofty ideal behind appropriating a Soul after the man’s death. Pinarayi is worried about the loss of reputation of a party member exposed to such tricks by the scheming clergymen. His point is that the Bishop initially said that the deceased himself had requested anointing, and later reversed it in a second statement. These statements read with other circumstantial evidence, point to the Bishop’s violation of ninth commandment (Thou Shalt Not Lie) at least on one occasion, either the first or second. Does it justify Pinarayi’s insinuation that a Bishop who spreads such a blatant lie is a “detestable creature”? Certainly not. It is part of the Faith that Bishops make holy statements and the question of lie does not arise at all. This blasphemy by a communist who has scant regard for the infallibility of the Church (and Bishops) deserves condemnation that he be consigned to Hellfire.

This is an ideal point at which the entire issue gets viewed topsy-turvy. Now the Church is no more worried about Mathai Chacko’s religious beliefs, the right and wrong of sacraments on the unwilling, and whether anointing was done at all. Now the only point discussed is that Pinarayi called the High Priest of a minority religion (it was pardonable had it been a majority religion) a detestable creature, which, in reality, he is not. He now reiterates that he uttered words to that effect, and justifies having said so. All the Bishop’s men including Oommen Chandy and K M Mani are now up in arms, chanting in chorus that Pinarayi committed blasphemy and should retract. I don’t think he is in a mood to retract, because these Communists have no fear of divine retribution against blasphemy.

Pinarayi Vijayan, although a great leader and political luminary, doesn’t seem to be well up in Scripture knowledge. Instead of using a phrase like “detestable creature” he should have reminded the diocese that His Holiness violated two Commandments, not just one as we all thought. By trying to poach a Soul (albeit unsuccessfully) from Pinarayi’s camp the Bishop violated the Tenth Commandment also (Thou Shalt not Covet). Violation of two Commandments may not put him to any great inconvenience in this world, but what about the next, I mean the Purgatory?