By Faraz Shauketaly

Pope Benedict XVI

A statement from the spiritual head of one billion people that signalled an end to a hard-line stance adopted from time immemorial, was hardly likely to go unnoticed. That is exactly what happened when Pope Benedict XVI – the Head of the Catholic Church – commented on the use of condoms in his latest book, Light Of The World.
Pope Benedict XVI, speaking to the German journalist Peter Seewald, who has twice before written books on plain Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger – now Pope Benedict XVI —  appears to have signalled a softening of the previous hard-line stance adopted by the Catholic Church. Liberal Catholics and those working towards fighting the spread of AIDS, especially on the African continent, welcomed the apparent shift even if that shift was tenuous at best.
Pope Benedict’s remark could not have been innocuous and it stopped short of a straight “yes we approve condoms” statement but considering that contraception is completely against the Catholic belief, the statement was interpreted by most as a start – certainly a step in the right direction, seemingly making the Catholic Church more pragmatic in trying to combat the growing menace of AIDS.
A storm was certainly brewing and a clarification was issued by the Vatican Press Office. It pointed out that Pope Benedict had stated that condoms alone were not the answer to the spread of AIDS. In the book, the Holy Father also said that the fact that condoms are available now and yet the spread of AIDS is present itself showcases that the distribution of condoms alone was not sufficient. He added that to concentrate on condoms alone is to trivialise sexuality, in turn losing its meaning as an expression of love and becomes like a drug. Last Wednesday however, His Holiness received Peter Seewald at the Vatican and was presented with the book’s first copy.
The author himself claimed that the Pope’s answers have been sensationalised by the world’s press and that undue prominence was being placed on the ‘condom’ issue. At 83 and having “placed himself in the hands of God” it is unlikely that His Holiness would have under-estimated the reverberations his answers would bring on its release. The book is likely to become a best seller.
The Pope of course made it very clear that in very specific instances – when it came to saving a life and to minimise the risk of spreading the disease – condom use would be the more humane route and cited the use of a condom by a male prostitute to stop the risk.
His Holiness was certainly all for the “final victory” that of making humanity more responsible and that sexuality was an expression of love and responsibility. The more liberal Catholics interpreted the Pope’s example of a male prostitute’s use of condoms as a sign that, however narrow the thought process was, His Holiness had at least now, acknowledged that there was a place for the use of condoms – even if that was not the real answer but a beginning of the understanding that to indulge in forbidden acts was to increase the risk of life.
If his statement on the use of condoms in specific cases was a “quick win”, the real answer, as the Pope would have us all have faith in, was in the bigger victory – in having his flock believe that in the long term, humanity should become more responsible and acknowledge that one simply cannot do exactly what one wants without regard for the consequences of one’s actions. Especially when one is risking not only one’s own life, but lives of fellow world citizens, whilst trivialising sexuality to almost like a self administered drug.
Pope Benedict has come almost full circle if not a U-turn: way back in 2009, on his visit to Africa – where the Catholic Church has the largest collection of its one billion plus flock – His Holiness was simply direct, saying AIDS was “a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem”. The Pope must have known that he was speaking in a continent where 17% of the population are followers of his Church and react to the words of His Holiness with a fervour that is not prevalent in the West; the West long having taken papal pronouncements with a pinch of salt. The Pope has been scathing in his remarks of the West too: speaking out on another issue which has caused the Church much consternation, sex tourism, “The destructive processes of sex tourism… is extraordinary and are born from the arrogance and the boredom and the false freedom of the Western world.”
Many in Africa lament that the problem of HIV and AIDS has been presented as rather trivial or simplistic: in that either the Catholic Church can make it stay or make it go away; almost as though that if the Pope accepts the use of contraception, that in itself would be sufficient to resolve the problem of AIDS. Rather, education, knowledge, poverty and consequently the financial packages the Church brings with it, alongside the spirituality, are key ingredients in the implements needed to combat the disease – hand in hand with experts on the ground who understand the magnitude of the problem.
The scale of the problem may be best understood with the numbers: more than 65% of the world’s AIDS sufferers live in Africa – some 22 million souls. The Catholic Church’s strongest growing base is the parish of Africa with approximately 17% of the African population.
The ever so slight shift in stance from the Catholic Church certainly gives the world of AIDS and HIV workers, activists and indeed those that suffer from a singularly evil disease and the children with AIDS, a glimmer of hope. For much of his life, Pope Benedict XVI has courted controversy more by external acts rather than pro active action; Joseph Aloysius Ratzinger, the 265th Pope, will go down in history as the Pope who first accepted condoms. For all his previous pronouncements, whilst he has steadfastly sought to keep within the confines of the faith for which he has given his entire life to uphold, Pope Benedict XVI must be given the recognition he so deserves – for being unafraid to acknowledge the realities of the modern age whilst not taking a major deviation from Catholicism.
faraz@thesundayleader.lk

Rt. Hon. Dr. Rowan Williams

The Church of Ceylon Diocese of Kurunegala has appointed the Ven. G.S.K. Francis as the fifth Bishop of Kurunegala. However, many have come to question the appointment because the appointee did not secure the necessary two-thirds majority votes at the formal Bishop Election held in April this year. Three other clerics too contested for the position at the election and failed.
According to reliable sources within the two Church of Ceylon dioceses in Sri Lanka, Colombo and Kurunegala, and also some senior members of the Church of Ceylon in England, the potential candidate for the position had been the scholar-priest, the Rev. Dr.Ruwan Palapathwala. According to these sources, Dr. Palapathwala had been the eminently qualified nominee under consideration for the position of Bishop of Kurunegala by His Grace the Rt. Rev. and Rt. Hon. Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Metropolitan Bishop of the Church of Ceylon.
The Rev. Dr.Ruwan Palapathwala was educated at Trinity College, Kandy, and trained for the priesthood in the Diocese of Kurunegala. Currently, he lives in Melbourne, Australia, where he is a parish priest, a world-religions lecturer, an interfaith and theology scholar, a prolific author and the senior chaplain of a leading university.
A senior Church of Ceylon clergyman from Colombo, who has opted to remain anonymous, said: “as soon as the word got around that Father Ruwan Palapathwala’s name was under consideration for the bishopric, instead of welcoming their learned colleague with out-stretched arms, a few ill-informed and narrowly-opinionated clergymen in Kurunegala lobbied against him and labeled Father Ruwan an “outsider”. “Subverting on this ‘outsider’ bandwagon,” the senior clergyman added, “it is the view of some laity in Kurunegala that, these clerics successfully appealed to the Archbishop to appoint apema kenek (one of our own) as Bishop,” While some consider that Archbishop Williams has succumbed to the pressure exerted on him by these few small-minded clergymen in Kurunegala, moderate clerics in Colombo think that the Archbishop may have decided on a “compromised appointment” to curb the threat of destabilisation of the diocese by these negative forces if “apema kenek” was not appointed to the post of Bishop.
“If Dr. Palapathwala had been appointed the Bishop of Kurunegala,” I asked T. K. Samaranayake, a Melbourne-resident and a contemporary of Dr. Palapathwala’s at Trinity College, “what may have been his contribution to the church in Sri Lanka?” He said: “based on my first-hand experience of his work in Melbourne, I can say that a deeply pastoral and theologically sound leadership; a superiorly esteemed, but practically grounded education; and, an internationally informed, but locally refined vision of the future church would have been the hallmarks of Pala’s (as he was fondly known to his friends at Trinity) ministry.”
Samaranayake also said: “considering Pala’s extensive international exposure and academic credentials, he would have also freed the diocese of Kurunegala from the clutches of its deeply-engrained parochialism and placed it on the world stage of contemporary church life and made the diocese to stand in-par with any progressive diocese in the world.”
So far, Bishop Duleep De Chikera of Colombo and Bishop Kumara Illangasinghe of Kurunegala, have not made clear the role they had played in the appointment process. The Rev. Neil Wasantha Wimalaratne of the Diocese Kurunegala, who filed a case in the District Court of Kandy in May this year challenging that certain procedures have not been adopted for the election of a new bishop, too has been silent on the appointment of Ven. G.S.K. Francis. At the time of writing this article, the two Bishops and Rev. Wimalarathne have not been available for comment.

Pope Benedict XVI

Following the general audience of October 20, 1010, the Holy Father Benedict XVI announced the names of24 prelates who will be created cardinals in a special ceremony, known as a consistory, due to be held on November 20, eve of the Solemnity of Christ the King. Sri Lanka is honoured and proud to have its second son, in the person of cardinal-designate Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, elevated to this most honourable position in the Church.
“Cardinals”, said the Pope, “have the task of helping Peter’s Successor carry out his mission as permanent and visible source and foundation of the Church’s unity of faith and communion.” Twenty of the new cardinals, being under the age of 80, will have the power to elect his eventual successor. This means that, after the Consistory on November 20, there will be 121 cardinals of voting age, one more than the usual 120 limit.
Cardinals, the “Princes of the Church” as they are traditionally called, are the pope’s closest advisers and are personally named by him. They are usually archbishops of major dioceses or heads of influential departments at the Vatican. “Cardinal” comes from the Latin “cardo-dinis” (hinge) and symbolises the link they assure between the Holy See and major dioceses. The Code of Canon Law attributes to the College of Cardinals the task of helping the Roman pontiff deal both with “questions of greater moment” and with the ordinary “daily administration” of the Church. Their trademark red hat, which they will receive in the ceremony, stands for their readiness to shed their blood for the Church.
The colour symbolises the commitment of the cardinals to hold fast to the faith “even unto the shedding of blood” (“usque ad sanguinis effusionem”, literally “up to of blood the shedding”) — that is, up to martyrdom. “In you,” Pope John Paul told the cardinals in one of his consistories, “the faithful and even the pastors of the particular Churches scattered throughout the world look for light and direction to live more profoundly the communion with the Roman See. Is not this perhaps the meaning of the admonition contained in the rite we are celebrating: ‘Te intrepidum exhibere debeas’ (‘You should show yourself fearless’)?” That is the mission of a cardinal.
Since 1630, cardinals are addressed as ‘His Eminence”. In accordance with Latin tradition, they sign by placing the title Cardinalis (abbreviated Card.) after their personal name and before their surname as, for instance, “Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith”. The new cardinals with then celebrate Mass with the Pope on the Feast of Christ the King, Sunday, November 21, and at that Mass they will receive their cardinalatial rings directly from the Pope to symbolise their bond with the Holy Father, the successor of Peter.  The Pope chooses the image on the outside: under Pope Benedict XVI it is a modern depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus, with Mary and John to each side. The ring includes the pope’s coat of arms on the inside.
The Lord has truly blessed our Motherland in giving us a new Cardinal in the person of cardinal-designate Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith. His name is much spoken of in the international forum and even in the Vatican for several reasons, namely for his ability to speak about 10 languages (a plus to converse with many cardinals and for the Universal Church), for his services as Nuncio in the largest Islamic country, Indonesia, not only for the diplomatic experience, but more importantly, for the experience gained in maintaining a dialogue with Islam, for having an operational knowledge of the affairs of the Holy See after serving in two different curia positions (Propaganda Fide and Congregation for Divine Worship), for his loyalty to the Supreme Pontiff, for his fearless/straightforward character of bearing witness to the Truth, for his love for the Liturgy of the Roman Church and also for his contribution for the peace process of Sri Lanka.
Rome awaits to receive Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith as many celebrations have been organised for the same. On November 17 at 10 am there will be a ceremonial Welcome to His Eminence at the Fuimicino International Air Port of Rome. The Sri Lankan delegation comprising  more than 250 participants (including priests, politicians, relatives and friends of His Eminence) are expected to participate at these celebrations. On the evening when the cardinals are created, that is on November 20th, the well-wishers of the new cardinals will be able to visit them inside the Vatican, to congratulate them and to receive their blessings. His Eminence will celebrate the Holy Eucharist with the Sri Lankan community on Tuesday, November 23 at St. Peter’s Basilica of the Vatican.
We wish cardinal-designate Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith God’s choicest blessings. May you be the proud son of Mother Lanka, the pearl of the Indian ocean and may you guide the Church in Sri Lanka in wisdom and in Truth for many more years to come.

Bellanwila Wimalarathana Thero and Maduluwawe Sobitha Thero

The controversial constitutional amendments which allow an incumbent president to contest any number of terms and to replace the 10 member Constitutional Council (CC) with a five member Constitutional Advisory Committee (CAC) have come under severe criticism by leading Buddhist monks in the country.
They are of the view that only a pious and intelligent leader would be able to govern the country honourably .

Excerpts of interviews with leading Buddhist monks on the constitutional amendments:

Chief Incumbent, Bellanwila Rajamaha Viharaya, Ven. Dr. Bellanwila Wimalarathana Thero queried why the government wished to bring new amendments to the present constitution which gives more power to the President when they have openly criticised the ‘78 Constitution and promised to abolish the presidency.
“Now we do not have a proper atmosphere to talk about what is good or what is bad. However there are two sides to these proposed constitutional amendments. If the unlimited executive power is not misused then we could expect a bright future for the country. But in the same manner if the power is misused for anyone’s survival or benefit then there would not be a country for our future generation,” Wimalarathana Thero told The Sunday Leader.
The Thero questioned as to why President Rajapaksa brought in amendments to the 1978 Constitution that give more power to the executive when the people have undergone immense hardships as a result of the J.R. Jayewardene constitution.
Chief Incumbent, Naga Viharaya Kotte, Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thero told The Sunday Leader that a dictatorship would be created once unlimited powers are vested in the executive.
“In 1978 when President J.R. Jayewardene introduced the new constitution Colvin R. de Silva, N.M. Perera and many more experienced politicians predicted the adverse impact of it. So we are now reaping the consequences of the 1978 Constitution. That was why President Chandrika Kumaratunga gave an assurance to the country that she would abolish the executive presidency no sooner she comes into power. But however she failed to stick to her promise and served her full term,” said the Thero.
“In 2005 Mahinda Rajapaksa in his election manifesto – Mahinda Chinthanaya clearly stated that the executive presidency that has been the bane of the country would be abolished during his first term. Then what happened after he was elected to office? He claimed that he needed the power to eradicate terrorism which was fairly true.
“But now after restoring peace why does he want more power and more terms? It is a known secret that he is benefiting from executive powers. So what would happen if he gets more power? There should be a limit to any thing.”
“I do not say President Rajapaksa is a bad administrator. It was he who won the war for us. But he is not immortal. What would happen if his successors misuse these powers?  That is why we want a president or a prime minister who is accountable to the law of the land and to the parliament,” Sobitha Thero said.
Sobitha Thero further said that the proposed 18th Amendment would inflict a severe blow to the country’s state sector once the powers are given to the cabinet to appoint, promote, transfer, take disciplinary action and to remove the heads of government departments.
However Chief Incumbent, Rangiri Dambulu Raja Maha Viharaya, Ven. Inamaluwe Sri Sumangala Thero said that unlimited powers to the executive and his team should be welcome as the rulers need more power to re-build the country.
Take the J.R. Jayewardene regime for an example. He had to become a dictatorial ruler to bring the continuous agitations and strikes to a complete standstill by taking tough decisions. He did not listen to the opposition but took the decision to discipline the people. True the strikers lost jobs but still President Jayewardene had to take that tough decision not for him but for the betterment of the country.
So I think if the present rulers too could develop the country and bring back the lost glory even through a dictatorship without misusing powers then there is no harm to it,” Sumangala Thero told The Sunday Leader.
Secretary Incumbent to the Most Ven. Weweldeniye Medhalankara Mahanayake Thero of the Sri Lanka Ramanna Sect, meanwhile said that it would be unsafe to vest more powers in the executive since it could lead to a dictatorship.
“President Mahinda Rajapaksa came into power promising to abolish the executive presidency during his first term. But now he wants to continue in office with more powers. Why does he need more power and more terms of office? There is a hidden agenda behind this and a dictatorship regime is inevitable,” the Thero claimed.
Secretary Incumbent to the Most Ven Asgiriya Mahanayake Thero Ven. Anamaduwe Dhammadassi Thero said that unless the unlimited powers are exercised for the betterment of the country and its people it could be dangerous for an individual to hold office continuously with more powers.

A Buddhist can never be a racist, a nationalist or a promoter of any petty political doctrine.

An observer of Sri Lankan politics would notice that many if not all nationalist and racist elements of the Sinhalese community are Buddhists. This was mainly due to the centuries old Buddhist tradition in the country. Some politicians used to claim that they were fighting for the Sinhalese community because the majority Sinhalese were sidelined by pro-Western governments. These claims sometimes reached the proportions of outright racism.

The presence of Buddhist monks in nationalist and even racist organisations and political parties raises a question about the contradiction of theory and practice of Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Does Buddhism condone such practices for the sake of the protection of religion or are these people just misusing Buddhism as a tool to achieve their own ends?

A close study of Buddhism reveals that it is a teaching geared towards liberating oneself of thanha (craving, desire, greed). All creatures including you who are reading this and I who is writing are in a continuous cycle of life and death called sansara. Our desire for worldly things create a cause for the sansara to perpetuate until we are unable to find a way to dispense with this desire. Buddhism shows the path to overcome desire and attain Nirvana.

A racist is a person who loves his race and thinks of it as superior to other races. A nationalist will promote his nation over all others. All these are forms of desire, a craving to see the betterment of one’s own race or nation against those of others. So, they are trying to protect worldly things rather than trying to attain Nirvana.

Sadly, this applies to all the monks and laymen who declare themselves to be nationalist and patriotic while being Buddhist. What is more alarming is that openly racist elements (by deeds if not by words) are claiming to be hard-line Buddhists. But this contradicts the very basic teaching of Buddhism about overcoming desire. Therefore it is obvious that the so called ‘hard-line’ Buddhists are actually misguided Buddhists who are distorting a great teaching to attain their own worldly goals.

A Buddhist can never be a racist, a nationalist or a promoter of any petty political doctrine.