Fr. Roy Lazar A
Option for the poor has become a byword for pastoral care since the emergence of Liberation Theology and it has been augmented by the teachings of the Vatican II especially by Gaudium et spes. Church understands that the primary purpose of her existence is the proclamation of the Good News that the reign of God is for and with the poor. “At the same time as it proclaims the Gospel of the Lord, its Redeemer and Savior, the Church calls on all, especially the poor, the oppressed and the afflicted, to cooperate with God to bring about liberation from every sin and to build a world which will reach the fullness of creation only when it becomes the work of people for people” (Justice in the World 1971, №77). Pope St. John Paul II emphasized this option all through his long years of papacy. In his social encyclical, Soilicitudo rei socialis he said, “A consistent theme of Catholic social teaching is the option or love of preference for the poor.
Today, this preference has to be expressed in worldwide dimensions, embracing the immense numbers of the hungry, the needy, the homeless, those without medical care, and those without hope” (No 42). From the first day of his papacy Pope Francis has not minced his words to show very forcibly his concern for the poor to whom he asserts that the entire world has a grave social debt (Laudato Si, №30). This option for the exploited is reflected in every page of his recent encyclical, Frateli Tutti. ‘We are made for love, hence it is the duty of a Christian to recognize Christ in the face of every excluded person’ (Nos. 85–88).
Identifying the poor in general and specially in the Latin American context was much easier due to its homogeneous setting. The poor are pitched vis-a-vis the rich referring to the economic advantage which ensures also political and cultural hegemony. The poor in Indian context has another unique tag attached for more than two thousand years, which makes the problem very complicated. It is the hierarchical caste system that categories the poor with pollution insignia and excludes them from the mainstream and stripes them off dignity and equality.
It was the strategy of Dr. Ambedkar, who fought before the independence for political equality of the Dalits by demanding ‘double vote’. The Poona Pact (1932) ended his demand for separate electorate. But after 1947 he realized that mere vote could not change the flight of the exploited people. It is like the lad, David before Goliath equipped with metal armour, but which he could not handle. The sling that the Dalit needed urgently was a social reform especially demolishing the caste system, because ‘there cannot be a more degrading system of social organisation than the caste system. It is the system, which deadens, paralyses, and cripples the people, from helpful activity. This is no exaggeration. History bears ample evidence’ (Ambedkar 1936/2014, 17.7). Loyalty to caste has superseded any other affinity and loyalty even the parental love, which is demonstrated very frequently by the cruel ‘honour killing’ all over the country.
When Caste and religion are intermingled, it makes the issue ambiguous and ubiquitous. “Caste may be bad. Caste may lead to conduct so gross as to be called man’s inhumanity to man. All the same, it must be recognised that the Hindus observe caste not because they are inhuman or wrong-headed. They observe caste because they are deeply religious. People are not wrong in observing caste. In my view, what is wrong is their religion, which has inculcated this notion of caste. If this is correct, then obviously the enemy you must grapple with is not the people who observe caste, but the shastras, which teach them this religion of caste. … The real remedy is to destroy the belief in the sanctity of the shastras… “You must have the courage to tell the Hindus that what is wrong with them is their religion — the religion which has produced in the this notion of the sacredness of caste. Will you show that courage?” (Ambedkar 1936/2014, 20.9–12).
The Christian churches in India are challenged in the context of religious fundamentalism and communal violence to find ways and means to safe guard peace and harmony at the same time uphold the dignity of the marginalised people by denouncing as a first and decisive step. The need of the hour is an effective and engaging dialogue among the various religions in defence of human dignity and communal harmony. The search for developing a meaningful and fruitful culture of dialogue has to be part of praxis of all the religions.
“For these reasons, the Church, while respecting the autonomy of political life, does not restrict her mission to the private sphere. On the contrary, ‘she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines’ in the building of a better world, or fail to ‘reawaken the spiritual energy’ that can contribute to the betterment of society… The Church ‘has a public role over and above her charitable and educational activities’. She works for the advancement of humanity and of universal fraternity” (Frateli tutti 276).
About the Author
Roy Lazar A. a priest the diocese of Vellore, India holds doctorate in Pastoral Theology and Post-Doc. (Habilitation) in Fundamental Theology from the University of Würzburg in Germany. Areas of specialisation: Pastoral/Practical Theology, Pastoral Counselling, Peace Studies, Comparative Religion & Interfaith Dialogue. Faculty of Dept. of Christian Studies, Madras University, St. Francis Xavier Seminary, Veppoor & Sacred Heart Seminary, Chennai, India and since 2018, parish priest in Arni. Publications include: Religious Praxis in Response to Violence. A Discourse in Practical Theology of Peace and Nonviolence, (2012), Arutpani Anmigam Thiruthanthai Francisin Adichuvattil (Tamil) (Pastoral Spirituality in the Footsteps of Pope Francis), (2017); One Minute for Peace. Theology of Praxis for Peace and Nonviolence (2018).
