Primetime Pope and the Maverick Mother

October 10, 2003 – Oslo

Will it be the Pope and will he perform in true Vatican style by appearing on a balcony and raising his hands in blessing? His name is on the short-list for the Nobel Peace Prize, for which there are 165 probable candidates (at a time when peace has hardly been anywhere on the horizon).

Looking back, I wonder why I missed the opportunity of being a part of the ‘peace mission’ and patting myself for having made the right choice. I should have sent an email to Pope John Paul 11. But, could one person, however holy he may be, prevent a war? That was the prevailing sentiment then: “Although the US administration has no reservations about slaughtering up to 50,000 Iraqis, there is one person whose life they will absolutely not risk” and he would act as “the ultimate human shield” were he to travel to Iraq until peace returned. Would I have put an 82-year-old through such an ordeal?

The Pope has led a full and vital life at the Vatican for 25 years, during which time several conflicts have taken place. Why were there no such appeals then? His Holiness has always stood for peace, and this time round too he had categorically stated that should there be a war, the Vatican diplomats would not leave Baghdad and stay there to help the people. But is this why he was being asked to go there?

However, I do not think that the Nobel ought to be given to the Pope. Such an accolade would defeat the very purpose for which Papal intervention was being sought. It would amount to pitting one religion against another although this was not a holy war, despite the fact that George Bush did mention Jesus and Saddam Hussein was being dignified by the Muslim world. The minute the Peace Prize goes to the Pope, it will send out the wrong message, for others will start talking about being ‘messengers of god’ too.

Besides, in a world fraught with huge problems of subsistence, and an attempt to reduce the cleavages in society, if only a person of god is seen as a symbol of peace, then we are in deeper trouble than we thought. Does it mean that the nations of the world are voiceless and millions of people of this earth no less than insignificant worms whose opinions can be trampled upon? I am aware that not everyone who has won has been a deserving candidate, but at least we can pull them up for human frailties. Can we do the same with the Pope?

In 1994, the Pope was named ‘Time’ magazine’s Man of the Year. Why? “In a year when so many people lamented the decline in moral values or made excuses for bad behaviour, Pope John Paul 11 forcefully set forth his vision of the good life and urged the world to follow it.” Adolf Hitler and Stalin too had been previous winners. The point is not whether the Pope ought to have got the award. We must remember the pompous reason given for this honour. Is urging the world not to use condoms or not to abort babies truly a vision of the good life? If he had covered more than half a million miles to convey this message, then he sounds more like a travelling salesman than a pontiff.

I am sure His Holiness can make the world a better place to live in. But at a time when everything is moving at a different pace and situational demands are different and when even making a Confession has become hi-tech, and the Pope too has to use all the electronic gadgets, must he not realise that ‘goodness’ and ‘badness’ are all momentary lapses?

I have never thought of people of god as being perfect; their very holiness is imperfect. It makes them blind to everything else. Besides, it is high time we demanded from our various religions and their wardens some degree of accountability.

We will have to rethink the concept of moral certainty for which the Pope was then honoured. It is not merely that you can say your prayers and gloat that you can sleep with a clear conscience. I know of many insomniacs who are very moral. Ultimately, morality is that which you do with responsibility and the full knowledge of its consequences on you and society.

Several years ago, the Pope had visited America, where he made a path-breaking announcement: that celibacy was not essential to the Church. He acknowledged, “Jesus didn’t make a law, but proposed an ideal of celibacy for a new priesthood that he was establishing.” That is when he should have been given the Peace Prize. For peace is not about stopping wars, but about freeing the world from strangleholds.

October 19, 2003 – The Vatican

Over a million people will be gaping open-mouthed as Mother Teresa is beatified for having appeared in a paddy field, what if it is only as a vision. But does this qualify her as a person on her way to sainthood? Of course, that is not the main reason. The story is about a village woman, Monica Besra, who was suffering from a cyst in the stomach and got miraculously cured because she held a medallion that had been blessed by the Mother. She is convinced: “I tried many doctors, lots of medicines but nobody could really heal me. On the death anniversary of Mother Teresa, I prayed to her and I could see Mother herself.”

Faith can move mountains, but I wonder why this simple villager prayed to Mother and even remembered her death anniversary. I find it too pat. And the fact that she has converted to Christianity after the miracle and her family is being looked after make one raise these questions. Soon enough there will be another miracle and Mother T will be a right royal saint. Sister Nirmala, Mother’s successor at the Missionaries of Charity, says rather cockily, “It has been investigated scientifically and it has been proven it’s a miracle.” Since when has science started proving miracles?

Anne Sebba, associate producer of ‘Mother Teresa: The Making of a Modern Saint’ has written, “There is an especially strong paradox in Mother Teresa’s case, since she did not devote her efforts to effecting miracle cures. Doctors and nurses, even those who wished to join her order, had no particular role to play there. She said many times that she was, quite simply, demonstrating Christ’s love in action by helping people die a beautiful death, not by helping them live an extra few years.” Sebba has also wondered why the present Pope is so keen on making saints — at least 465 at the last count and some 1,300 beatifications, more than all the canonisations and beatifications in the preceding 400 years.

This brings us again to the question of moral certainty. Tariq Ali in ‘Hell’s Angel’ had rubbished Mother for taking money from despots. She forgave them and that was it? Look at the other embodiment of Christian charity, Gladys Staines, whose husband Graham and their two children were burnt alive in Orissa. The killer, Dara Singh, has recently been awarded the death sentence, but the lady has forgiven him. And this is not now; she has been saying it from the beginning. I think this is a mockery of the Indian judiciary, though it has not had any impact on the legal process. She said recently, “Forgiveness and the consequences of crime should not be mixed up. God and Christ had forgiven and expect his followers to do the same. (The Holy Bible says that.) Whomsoever you forgive, their sins will be forgiven. Therefore, in the light of eternity, we need forgiveness for our sins to enter heaven.”

Hence Dara Singh, who committed a crime against Christianity, will ostensibly be transported to a Christian heaven, and the law will look like an ass for not being Christian enough. Just the way Mother T made everyone feel – guilty.

I too went through this phase when not being a leper, or dying, (or the Princess of Wales) filled me with pangs of conscience. Till I read an interview of Germaine Greer where the feminist writer showed us a few perceived warts on the saintly visage. The thrust of the interview was on Mother’s religious imperialism. If she were not so holy, Greer contended, then her worldwide expansions would be considered an ego trip. “On ‘His’ behalf she totally lacks humbleness. All care for the dying, all salvation of prostitutes, etc, happens for ‘Him’. On top of this Mother Teresa is ‘His’ special friend who knows what ‘He’ wants. This megalomaniac attitude makes me furious.”

I was never filled with such rage, but I did believe that Mother was not exactly what the doctor and contemporary living ordered. And certainly as a woman I find this sainthood business designed to keep women in their places.

While a lot of people will say that she had men falling at her feet, and quote this as proof enough of women’s empowerment, I beg to differ. They were seeking a higher cause like god and she was the medium. Every woman outside this fold revealed their own sexuality. Mother ‘desexualised’ them and for those few minutes they felt ‘connected’. I find this dangerous. The male, having experienced Mother’s unobtrusiveness in helping him get there, would expect the living woman in his life to be as understanding. That is the main reason men all over the patriarchal world will have no objection if she were to be canonised.

Mother’s attitude towards ‘lesser women’ buffers the male stereotype. As Greer wrote, “They (Mother’s nuns) don’t see prostitutes as poor women who are enjoying free enterprise in the world’s most ancient profession, but as sinners. The punishment for these women is to teach them embroidery.” (A sex worker who sought forgiveness for her sins from the Pope was granted it because, after all, Christ had been kind to Mary Magdalene.)

I shall not touch upon the free enterprise bit, but there is nothing more demeaning than taking a woman out of the gutter and putting her in an airless room. This has been the Mother Teresa version of morality. Don’t abort. The idea is not that life is precious but that every orphan is stimulus for guilt. Why, even a rape victim can only be permitted to use a douche bag to clean out the semen from the vagina. I don’t know how many such women will rush to wash themselves. If they lack such presence of mind, then they are either burdened with the ‘sin’ of abortion or of being unwed mothers or the cause of the burgeoning orphan population. Any which way they lose. Only saints go marching in.