The theft and alleged misappropriation of offerings at the Ram Janambhoomi Temple in Ayodhya has been hogging the headlines. Will the big fish be caught? Were huge sums of money siphoned off to purchase the loyalty of wayward MPs from some Opposition Parties? Gong by our past record of investigation; and sensitive issues being kept on the backburner in the Supreme Court, most of us Indians are skeptical of the whole truth ever emerging.
Explosive issues like the Pegasus spyware and the Rafael deal remain buried somewhere in the registry of the top court. Sadly, those who question such omissions are now labeled “cockroaches”.
This is so different from the West where a Watergate scandal brought down the U.S. President Richard Nixon; or the Profumo scandal in the U.K., where Secretary of State for war John Profumo was honey trapped by a 19 year old model Christine Keeler, believed to be a Soviet spy.
Be that as it may, Champat Rai, the General Secretary of the temple trust seems to be the prime suspect. So far only his driver Tinnu Yadav is among the eight arrested. What many may not know is that Champat is very close to the Prime Minister. As for his name Champat, in Hindi it means absconder. While differing from Shakespeare I daresay that there is a lot in a name.
These sordid affairs in Ayodhya, all in God’s name, forced me to reflect. Does God need our gold, silver, jewelry and huge donations? In India Hindus, and Catholics in particular, have a strong bhakti streak, that translates into donations for the Divine. In the south there are huge temples like Tirupati Balaji and Padmanabaswamy that attract millions of pilgrims and donations. Among Catholics this is evident in some Marian shrines like Velankanni or to those of St Anthony.
Does God require or even appreciate such offerings? Does it translate into blessings for the donors/ devotees? Are such devotees using their donations as a bargaining chip or a mediclaim type health insurance? Is there a quid pro quo? It is not for me to question the intent of the devotees, but some quotes from scripture could help us see things in a broader perspective.
“What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?” (Is 1:11). “Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices pleasing to me” (Jer 6:20). “If one sacrifices from what has been wrongly obtained, the offering is blemished; the gifts of the lawless are not acceptable. The Most High is not pleased with the offerings of the ungodly and he is not propriated for sins by a multitude of sacrifices” (Sir 34:18-19). “I will accept no bull from your house or goat from your folds, for every beast of the forest is mine … the world and all that is in it is mine” (Ps 50:9,10,12).
These texts from the Old Testament clearly indicate that an offering in itself is neither desired nor pleasing to God. If the source is ill-gotten wealth then it is abominable. However, the New Testament shows us what kind of offering is pleasing to God.
“It is kindness that I want, not animal sacrifices” (Mat 9:13). “To love with all the heart … and to love one’s neighbor as one’s self is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices” (Mk 12:33). “Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God” (Heb 13:16).
From the above it is clear that it is better to share and give to those in need than to offer fancy gifts in churches; on feast days or in places of pilgrimage. Of what use is a silk sari to Mother Mary or a gold chain to St Anthony? These are senseless acts of blind faith. Equally at fault are those priests who solicit or encourage such extravagant offerings.
Jesus repeatedly condemned the external showmanship and generosity of the Pharisees (cf Mat 6:3). But he held in high esteem genuine personal sacrifice extolling the widow’s mite. “Truly I say to you this poor widow has put in more that all those contributing to the treasury” (Mk 12:43). This is what Mother Teresa meant when she said “Don’t give from your excess. Give from what hurts”.
From the act of giving or offering let us also examine the relevance of money itself. Jesus said “No one can be the slave of two masters; he will either hate the first or love the second, or be attached to the first and despise the second. You cannot be the slave of both God and money” (Mat 6:24). Paul wrote that “The love of money is the root of all evil. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs” (1 Tim 6:10).
A cursory reading of these texts could lead to erroneous conclusions – that money, per se, is bad. Not so. It is the enslavement, love or craving for money that is bad. If money is our primary goal in life then it is wrong in the eyes of the Lord. If, however, we see it as an instrument for doing good, then it is indeed a virtue. We cannot deny that we need money for roti, kapda aur makan, the essentials of life. We also need money for health and education. It is only the inordinate desire for money that is condemned.
At the same time there is also the espousal of evangelical poverty. “He charged them to take nothing for their journey, except a staff, no bread, no bag, no money in their belts” (Mk 6:8). It is this extreme form of evangelical poverty that St Francis of Assisi embraced, acting as a counter witness to a church and world obsessed with wealth; resulting in a major reformation in both.
From personal wealth creation we could also reflect on community assets in the church. Here there are many sticky points, especially when the custodians of such assets treat them as their personal fiefdom and any query pertaining to the same is perceived as a personal insult or deemed an anti-clerical act.
I hold very firm views on this. Public money is accountable to the public. I belong to a family that has been in business for 170 years. For the last 43 years I have been looking after my joint family property. I ensure total transparency and accountability. I also manage a large commercial establishment as its honorary President, for the last 13 years. I ensure Annual General Meetings, regular elections and audited accounts. This has earned me both trust and the respect of the other stake holders, vendors and even the employees. I believe in practicing what I preach.
I fail to understand why our hierarchy and clergy are so allergic to transparency and accountability. If you have nothing to hide then you should have nothing to fear. Pope Francis had given a clarion call for synodality, with three key words – participation, communion and mission. There can be no communion without participation nor can there be any mission without communion. So participation is the key. I go a step further – there can be no participation without trust and mutual respect. We talk of being a family. A family shares, trusts and communicates. Without them it would be a tyranny not a family.
This is what we see happening all too often in the church, the tyranny of the powerful, especially through pulpit control. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This doesn’t mean that all are corrupt, but there can be misuse or gross errors of judgment. Recently in my diocese a school and a church were built without a sanctioned map. The school was sealed and the church building razed to the ground. Whose loss is it if not of the entire community? In the USA several dioceses have gone bankrupt paying compensation for sexual abuse.
It is in anticipation of such scenarios that Canon Law has very specific provisions. “In each parish there is to be a Finance Committee” (Can 537). “All administrators are to perform their duties with the diligence of a good householder” (Can 1284:1), “ensure that the ownership of ecclesiastical goods is safeguarded in ways that are valid in civil law” (Can 1284:2/1) “keep accurate records of income and expenditure” (ibid 7), “draw up an account of their administration at the end of each year” (ibid 8). “Administrators are to render accounts to the faithful concerning the goods they have given to the church” (Can 1287:2).
These few excerpts are enough to indicate the mind of the church. But there is a huge dichotomy between precept and practice. As recently as 1st July the new archbishop of Calcutta, Elias Frank, issued detailed guidelines for the establishment of Parish Finance Committees. This caused ripples in ecclesiastical circles.
While appreciating the archbishop’s transparent approach, one cannot deny that exceptions prove the rule. By this gross act of omission the Catholic Church in India is leaving the doors wide open for champats to abscond with community assets, so why blame Ayodhya? God doesn’t need your money. Those in need do.
Leave a Reply