Domination, dominion, domineering – these are words to which I am inherently allergic. To that I will now add the word “domain”, in the context of cyber domains on the World Wide Web. I was taken aback by a recent news report that the Vatican has applied for the exclusive use and control of the domain “.catholic”.
What is the issue? A cyber domain is a cyber property that is purchased from the concerned authority, to which one obtains an exclusive right. Governments or huge commercial corporations usually own domains. The generic top-level domains are those ending in .com, .org, .edu, .gov etc. The Vatican, on the 13th June, applied to the “Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers“ for the “.catholic” domain. It paid an application fee of $740,000/- (Rupees Four Hundred Crores) to obtain the name in four languages – Latin, Cyrillic (used in Russia and Slavonic countries), Arabic and Chinese. This is only the application money. What of the actual one-time and subsequent recurring charges? Who is paying for this domination, if not the good old faithful? We the people are paying the Pope to control us!
From the official texts it is not clear if the application is for the Latin language (who uses it anyway?) or the Roman script. If the latter, it covers all European languages, including English, that has become the lingua franca of worldwide communication. In effect this means that the Vatican seeks to own this domain. This, despite the fact that the Vatican already has its exclusive domain “.va”. So what more does the Vatican hope to achieve through the new domain that it has applied for? Rev Paul Tighe, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, says controlling the domain “will be a way to authenticate the Catholic presence online“. Its use will be limited to those “with formal canonical recognition” like dioceses, parishes, religious orders, etc; so that the “recognized structure of the church can be mirrored in the digital space”. If no objections are received within 60 days of the Vatican’s application, it will get the domain by spring 2013.
A domain is a cyber property, like 2G Spectrum, that caused such a furor in India. It may also be compared to a patent or trademark, though those are intellectual property rights, which debar others from their use. Remember some jokers in America trying to patent words like “neem” and “basmati”? In like manner a cyber-squatter may obtain a domain, like Tata or Bajaj, presuming that they don’t have it already. He then “squats” on the domain, until somebody who actually needs it, is ready to buy it off! We Indians are good at squatting in the public domain (pun intended).
So how does this domain affect the average Catholic, who has actually paid for it? The development, and the logic behind it, are disturbing, but not alarming. An example will suffice. If I make an email ID chhotebhai.catholic@gmail.com, the Vatican cannot stop me. If the All India Catholic Union makes a website address catholic.union.india.org, again there is no problem. However, if, after the domain is created, I try to make a website chhotebhai.writer.catholic, then I would be encroaching on the Vatican owned domain. I would not be able to use it without prior sanction from the Vatican, on its prescribed terms and conditions (personal allegiance to the Pope perhaps)! So the situation is not all that alarming. But for those with an open mind it could be disturbing and disconcerting.
I see it as a throwback to the days of the Inquisition, of controlling thought and expression, of the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope, rather than the collegiality of the bishops and the participation of the people. Vatican II is rather vague on infallibility. The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (LG) has this to say: “In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ, and the faithful are to accept their teachings … Submission of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex-Cathedra” (LG 25). These teachings “may be known from the character of the documents, frequent repetition or from the manner of speaking” or when “he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith and morals … Infallibility resides also in the body of bishops when that body exercises supreme teaching authority with the Successor of Peter “ (Ibid).
These statements are certainly not “definitive”. They are more a statement of intent than content. I am distinctly uncomfortable with the reference to “frequent repetition”. Is the Church promoting Goebbelisation? By “frequently repeating” its objection to artificial contraception has the holy Catholic Church converted it into a definitive, infallible, irreformable doctrine of faith and morals?
Ironically the word “infallible” is missing from both the Latin (1983) and Oriental (1990) codes of Canon Law. The codes pertaining to the “Roman Pontiff” in the Hierarchical Constitution of the Church are LC 330-335 and OC 42-48. So who is to codify, define and legalize “infallibility” for us the “dumb sheep”?
Students of Church History will know that there was no clarity on papal infallibility till the First Vatican Council (1870). 744 bishops participated in the Council, over 200 of whom were from Italy alone. The bishops from the USA, France and Germany strongly opposed the doctrine of infallibility. Only 537 bishops participated in the final vote on 18/7/1870. On this issue a group of Catholics in Switzerland and Germany broke away from Rome, calling themselves “Old Catholics”. We also need to remember that this Council was prematurely terminated by a war in Italy.
Now let me make some counter points from the Vatican II “Decree on the Instruments of Social Communication“ (IM). It says that the “Church claims as a birthright the use and possession of all instruments of this kind which are necessary or useful for the formation of Christians“ (IM 3). Is the birthright of the church restricted to the Pope and those whom he shall deign to authenticate?
The next quote is explosive. “There exists within human society a right to information about affairs which effect others, individually or collectively, and according to the circumstances of each“ (IM 5). So the Church officially supports the RTI Act. In practice it is the exact opposite. The Vatican, the Nunciatures, bishops and priests do not believe in communicating, replying or responding to letters and applications. They rarely, if ever, divulge any information. Will the new canonically authenticated domain give us information on how many cases of clerical pedophilia there have been in Europe and America, how much compensation has been paid as damages, what is the source of that money, and how many dioceses have gone bankrupt in the process? Will the Catholic domain only publish “good news” a la a former archbishop of Kolkata, who fired two editors of the weekly he “owned” for crossing the Lakshman Rekha?
Every right enshrines in it a duty. I throw my gauntlet into the ring, and invite the Catholic hierarchy of India to do likewise. What about the people’s right to Christian education (LC 217, 794:2), the formation of Pastoral Councils (LC 511-514, 536), the establishment of Finance Committees with competent lay persons (LC 492, 537), the directives regarding administration of temporal goods, contracts, accountability, alienation of fixed assets (LC 1284, 1286, 1287, 1298)? There are many other provisions in Canon Law that are conveniently overlooked; like not accepting more offerings than the number of masses offered (LC 953) or no extra charge for the administration of the sacraments (LC 848). I could go on and on, with a litany of woes of the laity.
Finally, we need to remind the church about the interface of Canon Law and Civil Rights. Canon Law subjugates itself to Civil Law, provided that it is not contrary to divine law (LC 22). In civil areas like marriage and temporal goods the Church again accepts the supremacy of Civil Law (LC 1071:2, 1284, 1286, 1290).
So the idea of a Catholic domain owned by the Vatican is partially acceptable. It is natural jurisprudence that those who pay for it must have a say in it. In like manner, let the Vatican claim its rights, provided that it simultaneously fulfills its duties. Till then I will continue to be a Catholic in my own domain. Thank you, but I don’t need anybody’s canonical authentication. My baptism certificate and my Christian commitment suffice.
July 2012
Leave a Reply