November 1, 2023 • 56 mins
This week on The Open Door (November 1st), panelists Jim Hanink, Mario Ramos-Reyes, and Valerie Niemeyer discuss India, religious freedom, and Thomism. Our distinguished and welcome guest is Prof. Timothy Samuel Shah of the University of Dallas. By training and personal passion, he is a scholar of politics and political philosophy, specializing in religion and global politics, religious freedom, and the history of moral and political theory. With his wife, Rebecca Shah, he is based in Bangalore, India. With Rebecca, he has established several initiatives in partnership with the University of Dallas, including a Jacques and Raïssa Maritain Program on Catholicism, Public Life and World Affairs. Under the auspices of the Maritain Program, Prof. Shah coordinates a monthly online Thomistic Study Circle, which involves numerous expert and amateur Thomists from around the world, and which seeks to re-enliven an appreciation of the Angelic Doctor’s timeless teaching and relevance, especially for public affairs. Most recently, he and Rebecca established a Program for Indo-American Understanding and Friendship at the Gupta College of Business at the University of Dallas. The program, among other things, seeks to promote deep dialogue and genuine understanding between Hinduism and Catholic Christianity. In addition to serving as a Distinguished Research Scholar in the Politics Department at the University of Dallas, Shah also serves as Director of Strategic Initiatives for the Center for Shared Civilizational Values, an organization he founded with senior leaders of the world’s largest Muslim organization, Nahdlatul Ulama in Indonesia, in order to strengthen and preserve a rules-based international order founded upon respect for the equal rights and dignity of every human being.
1. Prof. Shah, Tim if we may, how can Americans better understand India, now the most populous nation in the world?
2. What might Mahatma Gandhi think of India today?
3. Commentators are calling attention to the political and military implications of the developing relations between India and the United States. Can you explain for us something of what’s at stake?
4. India’s Supreme Court recently declined to recognize same sex marriage, insisting that it was a matter for the legislature. What factors went into this decision?
5. How did you come to have a special interest in religious freedom? What are some of the key challenges to religious freedom today?
6. Could you tell us about how you came to the University of Dallas? How is it a distinctive institution?
7. At the yearly conference of the American Maritain Association you presented a paper warning of the “siren song” of Catholic integralism. Why are you critical of this phenomenon?
8. It has been said that everyone is born either a Platonist or an Aristotelian. But you are a keen Thomist. How did this happen? Were you, perhaps, trying to combine the best of Plato and of Aristotle?
9. Is there a Catholic-Hindu dialogue in India? Is there a Catholic-Muslim dialogue in India?
10. Pope Francis has said that we are already in the midst of World War III. What do you think he meant? Do you agree with him?
1. Prof. Shah, Tim if we may, how can Americans better understand India, now the most populous nation in the world?
2. What might Mahatma Gandhi think of India today?
3. Commentators are calling attention to the political and military implications of the developing relations between India and the United States. Can you explain for us something of what’s at stake?
4. India’s Supreme Court recently declined to recognize same sex marriage, insisting that it was a matter for the legislature. What factors went into this decision?
5. How did you come to have a special interest in religious freedom? What are some of the key challenges to religious freedom today?
6. Could you tell us about how you came to the University of Dallas? How is it a distinctive institution?
7. At the yearly conference of the American Maritain Association you presented a paper warning of the “siren song” of Catholic integralism. Why are you critical of this phenomenon?
8. It has been said that everyone is born either a Platonist or an Aristotelian. But you are a keen Thomist. How did this happen? Were you, perhaps, trying to combine the best of Plato and of Aristotle?
9. Is there a Catholic-Hindu dialogue in India? Is there a Catholic-Muslim dialogue in India?
10. Pope Francis has said that we are already in the midst of World War III. What do you think he meant? Do you agree with him?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
You're listening to w c A TRadio, your home for authentic Catholic programming.
Welcome to the Open Door, ashow based on the words in Revelation,
I have left an open door beforeyou which no one can close.
This is w c AT Radio's longestrunning show, which opened the door to
(00:22):
the radio station in October twenty sixteen. It's currently offered by Jim Hanninck,
Mario Ramo's Reyes and Friends and remainsopen to the love of God in its
call to build a culture of lifeand a just social order. Through the
panel's discussion of the Catholic social teachingprinciples of solidarity, subsidiarity, and economic
(00:47):
democracy. The Open Door also exploresnonviolence, distributism and communitarianism. So join
us at the Open Door where youtwo can be part of the conversation.
Welcome to the Open Door. JimHannick here with fellow panelists Mario Ramas,
(01:10):
Reyes and Valerie Niemeyer. Today wediscuss India, religious freedom and Thomism.
Our distinguished guest as Professor Timothy Shawof the University of Dallas by training in
Personal Passion. He is a scholarof politics and political philosophy, specializing in
(01:37):
religion and global politics, religious freedom, and the history of moral and political
theory. With his wife, RebeccahShaw, he is based in Bengalore,
India. With Rebecca, he hasestablished several initiatives in partnership with the University
of Dallas, including a Jacques andraisean program on Catholicism, public life,
(02:04):
and world affairs. Under the auspicesof the Maritan Program, Professor Shock coordinates
a monthly online Thimistic Study Circle whichinvolves expert and amateur thomass around the world
and which seeks to re enliven anappreciation of the common doctor's timeless teaching and
(02:28):
relevance, especially for public affairs.Most recently, he and Rebecca established a
program for Indo American Understanding and Friendshipat Gupta College of Business at the University
of Dallas. The program seeks topromote deep dialogue and genuine understanding between Hinduism
(02:53):
and Catholic Christianity. In addition toserving as Distinguished Research Scholar at the Politics
Department at the University of Dallas,Shaw also serves as Director of Strategic Initiatives
for the Center for Shared Civilizational Values, an organization which he founded with senior
(03:16):
leaders of the world's largest Muslim organization, not on latul Ulama in Indonesia,
in order to strengthen a rules basedinternational order founded upon respect for the equal
rights and dignity of every human person. As always, let's begin in prayer,
(03:46):
Holy Spirit, fill the hearts ofthe painful and kindle them the fire
of your love. Send forth yourspirit, and they shall be created,
and you shall renew the face theearth. God, who have taught the
hearts of the faithful by the lightof the Holy Spirit, granted in the
(04:08):
same spirit, we may be trulywise had ever rejoiced in his consolations through
Christ Stylloyd Amen, Professor Shah Tim, if we may, how can Americans
better understand India, which is nowthe most populous nation in the world.
(04:36):
Well, I think there's no betterway than to come and spend time in
India. You know, you canread about the place, and you can
read rabindagor whom we were talking aboutjust a moment ago before we started recording.
(04:57):
You know, there are great novelsand books and you could read about
great Indians like Gandhi and Nehru andothers. But there's really no substitute for
coming and immersing yourself in India.And my wife and I have a personal
passion to get more Americans to comeand spend time in India. So my
(05:19):
final answer to your question is,come and spend time with Becky and me
in our house here in Bangalore.We've got spare bedrooms. We would throw
out a welcome to anyone and everyonelistening that we'd love to have you stay
with us. And that's that's theway to see and experience India in the
(05:39):
in the home of Indians who loveIndia and who would love to share and
show you what an amazing civilization andcontinent, more than a country, India
is. What an invitation. Ihadn't expected that. I recommend you and
(06:01):
Valerie and Mario and Valerie six kidsor you're all well done. Ario,
What question would you like to takeus to? Well, I'm just scheduling
my trip to India. Well,you talk about Tagore and and I remember
(06:30):
my father was a physician. Hewas a good reader of Tagore. I'm
talking about the sixties and seventies.He was translated into Spanish by Jesuits.
But the figure, the man whoeveryone admired then was Madma Gandhi. Yes,
(06:53):
my question is what do you thinkGandhi would have said today of India.
It's a wonderful question. Well,Gandhi uh was a fierce anti modernist.
He was profoundly opposed to many featuresof modernity that we take for granted,
(07:18):
industrialization, uh. He hated modernforms of travel. He had a
fundamental hostility to the nation state.As such, he was of course committed
to non violence. So I thinkif if he were to, you know,
(07:40):
find himself in modern India, Ithink he would be deeply distressed by
many aspects of India. He'd behorrified that India has the third largest standing
army in the world. He'd behorrified that India is a nuclear power.
He would be horrified by the rapidityof economic modernization, industrialization. I think
(08:03):
he'd be horrified by urbanization in India. And I think too, there's no
doubt that he would be saddened bythe fact that his vision of an India
in which Hindus and Muslims and Christiansand Jains and Seekhs would live peacefully together,
(08:24):
that that vision is unfortunately in manyrespects, not being realized in today's
India. He'd be saddened that today'sIndia is I think it's fair to say
increasingly distant from a Gandhian vision ofa peacefully pluralistic society. I think too,
(08:48):
he would no question be very unhappyabout the fact that India is positioning
itself in the world in a waythat is very muscular. It's foreign policy,
it's positioning visa B countries such asChina, Pakistan, even its positioning
(09:09):
in the current Gaza war is increasinglyyou could say, muscular and self assertive.
And I think that Gandhi would findthis all very distressing. Interestingly,
I was remembering something that's really interestingand it helps to connect India and Tomism
(09:31):
and other topics will be discussing ina few minutes, namely that Jacques Maratan
was really deep admirer of Gandhi.As I'm sure the experts on Maratan speaking
to are aware, he went outof his way, Jacques Maratan to express
admiration for Gandhi at a time whenGandhi was not really that well known in
(09:56):
the late twenties early thirties. Hemade a a lot of the fact that
Gandhi used what Maratan called pure meansin achieving his political ends. Maritian was
of course very concerned about the purityof means in his political philosophy, and
he consistently elevates Gandhi as relief kindof the main example of a practitioner of
(10:22):
of of pure means in achieving hissocial and political goals. Uh So,
before you know, many other Westernersreally were aware of Gandhi's significance. Dock
Maratan was very aware and something ofa careful student of Gandhi, which all
of which I think is just justfascinating and deserves further study. Well,
(10:48):
so we can't we can't hear onthanks, we would love to hear Gandhi
himself commentate on on things, butwe do have other voices and our mid
It's calling attention to the political andmilitary implications of the developing relations between the
United States and India. And canyou explain for us there something of what's
(11:09):
at stake in the US India relationship. Yes, well, you could argue
that nothing less than the future ofthe world is at stake. It's been
said, and I agree that themost important bilateral relationship in the world today,
(11:33):
bar none, is the relationship betweenthe United States and India. India,
as noted a moment ago, recentlybecame the world's most populous country.
It is among the world's most youthfulcountries. It is a very dynamic society
(11:56):
with rapid economic growth, and it'sheft in Asia and the world is growing.
At the same time, we knowthat the United States, in terms
of its power and influence in theworld, is a rapidly declining power relative
to the power of other societies.I don't have a pollyannish view about the
(12:18):
role of America and the world affairs. I don't think America has always played
a very positive role in world affairs. But I would say that the United
States has been an indispensable element inbuilding the post World War two architecture of
a rules based international order, includinga robust human rights regime based on the
(12:43):
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Andas America's power declines, the stability of
a rules based international order, aswe're seeing all around us, is also
under threat. And it's crucial forthe United States to find partners whose power
(13:07):
is growing, who do have avalues based a moral interest in a rules
based international order, as opposed tothose countries that want to revise or weaken,
or even overthrow a rules based internationalorder in service of their self interested
(13:28):
geopolitical agendas. Countries like Iran,China, Russia are not interested in preserving
a rules based international order. Indiais interested in preserving and strengthening a rules
based international order. It is notinterested in preserving and strengthening a rules based
(13:48):
international order that gives disproportional influence tothe West. It's not interested in preserving
an international order in which it continuesto not have a eat on the UN
Security Council. But it's broadly interestedin an international order that is rules based,
that respects basic human rights, thatrespects the sovereignty of nations, that
(14:16):
is multilateral. So while India iscertainly not a Western country, it's not
a pro Western country. It doesn'twant to preserve Western hegemony. It wants
a world order that is more balancedand multilateral. But this is a crucial
point. I recently heard the Indianforeg ministers say this at a meeting I
(14:37):
attended in Washington. India may notbe non Western, but it is not
anti Western. It is very eagerto partner with the West, particularly the
United States, in defining and upholdinga new form of a rules based international
order. So it's absolutely that thisrelationship between the United States and India and
(15:03):
my view, continue to flourish andexpand. It's not just for the sake
of the interests of these two particularcountries, but the stability of the broadly
speaking, post war international order,including the United Nations Charter, which uh,
you know was profoundly influenced by Christiandemocracy and the ideas of Jacques Maritan
(15:28):
and the University Declation of Human Rights. If if these things matter to us,
if these things are worth preserving,then the relationship with the United States
and India is absolutely crucial. UHand UH and you know, of the
utmost importance, not least because Indiais on the frontier of an increasingly assertive
(15:50):
China. UH. And the surestway to provide a basis for a kind
of equanimity and balance once in Asiais to strengthen India. UH. An
Asian which India is stronger, isnot going to be in Asia that China
will be able to dominate. Sothat's another respect in which this relationship is
(16:14):
is of great importance. Pardon thelong winded geopolitical analysis. That's very helpful,
Thank you. Yeah, No,we welcome that, Tim, We
welcome it very much. I havea current question, but I want to
go back just a bit for asidebar question. Sure, good George Washington,
(16:41):
Mahatma Gandhi. There they are together, right right, Washington says.
Washington says, don't dabble with politicalparties. He was opposed to political parties,
yes, and and he also saiddon't get involved with other countries.
(17:03):
Yes, he was an isolationist.Yeah to Gandhi and Washington have anything to
say after Washington, who came,of course well before Gandhi. Lets Gandhi
know what his view was. I'mnot sure I understand the question, Jim.
Well, that's what people often saywhen I so Washington, we know
(17:33):
is opposed to political parties, andwe're entangled in political parties with the exception
of one political party. And Washingtonalso warned against any involvement with foreign countries.
Right now, So Gandhi hears whatWashington has to say, not having
(17:56):
heard it before, perhaps, andwhat what might Gandhi say that Washington and
what my Washington say to Gandhi?And what would you say to them?
Understand right? Right? Well,that's it's it's fascinating you you ask,
I mean, just off the cuff. I think they, these two respective
(18:18):
fathers of their nations, H inmany ways, did have a great deal
in common. You know. Theythey favored you know, versions of their
societies that were you know, insome way sadly rapidly becoming obsolete. They
they favored H you could say,more agrarian or in Ghandhi's case, more
(18:42):
village based life, you know.Washington Jefferson were I think, you know,
perhaps similar in this respect. Theyworried about moneyed interests, big banks.
Gandhi had the same concerns. Though. It's also to point out that
Gandhi's whole ability to live the simplelife that he lived depended on the generosity
(19:07):
of very wealthy Indian industrialists like theTatas. You know, he was heavily
funded, uh, you know,to to do what he did, and
the you know, the entire Uyou know movement that Gandhi led over many
decades was expensive. Actually. UhSo that's a kind of interesting you know,
I irony there. But you know, broadly speaking, they were you
(19:32):
know, concerned about the corruption ofof commerce, uh and and business in
some ways not unlike and not unlikeThomas Aquinas you know, reading Thomas aquinances
on on Kingship, its striking howuh diffident and even critical Saint Thomas was
(19:52):
about the dangers of excessive wealth andand and excessive business activity, you know,
were to the health and the virtueof of of of a of a
polity. And it's also true thatthat they both hoped for uh political uh
(20:17):
dynamics and deliberation that were consensual ratherthan divisive and uh and adversarial as you
as you say, you know,Washington didn't didn't like political parties, was
worried about faction, and Gandhi wasdeeply distressed by political uh division, religious
(20:40):
division, cast division. Really hopedthat these these differences could be transcended.
So you could say, though,in criticism of them both, that they
that they just were naive about whatmodernity inevitably brings, that modernity empowers people
(21:03):
to think for themselves. Gandhi arguablyhad one big weakness, which was that
he tended to be very paternalistic towardslower casts, including dolets or untouchables.
He famously called dollets, which meansthe broken, I mean the very lowest
cast people. He called them HariJohn's which means children of God. And
(21:25):
he arguably had a very naive viewabout, you know, the the ability
of traditional Indian society to really takecare of the lower casts. He thought
that the cast system was in principlenot a bad thing, it just needed
to be reinterpreted. And uh,you know this, this betrayed arguably a
(21:48):
kind of naive and even you know, destructive, destructively paternalistic understanding of Indian
society, even as modernity was empoweringall kinds of different classes and groups in
India to articulate for themselves what theywanted for for India. That is a
(22:11):
very helpful comparison. I'm going tomove on to here and now question very
recent development. But I would liketo point out that here on the Open
Door, we have never been naiveabout the dangers of external funding. We've
(22:33):
resisted funding resolutely. Fact we don'teven have internal funding. You're keeping yourselves
absolutely pure. Good for you,robbing, I dik to. This is
(22:55):
our two and seventy first episode.Uh no one can say that we haven't
been episodic, but but here weare now to be serious again. Uh,
India's Supreme Court, yes, recentlydeclined to recognize same sex marriage.
(23:19):
Uh, insisting that it was amatter for the legislature. Uh what what
factors went into this decision? Andhow will the legislature respond to the court's
direction. I could I could makeequip and say that, oh ahead,
(23:41):
go ahead, this is the opendoor. Were equip centered show? Uh,
the Nscreme Court was seized by afit of sanity and reasonableness. I
mean, that's really what explains it. I mean, here here was an
invitation to five member bench of theIndian Supreme Court to impose by judicial fiat
(24:08):
a view of marriage completely alien tothe traditions of one point four billion people.
This should not have been even youknow, entertained as a close call.
As it was, the five memberbench was somewhat split. Thankfully,
(24:30):
the majority prevailed and the court declinedto again imposed by judicial fiat same sex
marriage. So my equip was theywere seized by, you know, a
fit of sanity and reasonableness, andthat that that's true. They they they
(24:52):
realized that that that this was inherentlyproblematic. They didn't opine that same sex
marriage was inherent problematic as such.They simply said that this is a matter
for you know, the parliament,the Indian Parliament to decide by democratic deliberation
and democratic methods. Very sane.So I think the you know, the
(25:17):
Indian Supreme Court, which is notfamous for its restraint. By the way,
many Indian justices have traditionally had anextremely expansive understanding of their authority and
powers. Uh. The influential judicialjudicial expert and former Supreme Court Justice Falling
Narahan has argued that, you know, the Indian Supreme Court basically should be
(25:41):
free, you know, to totreat the Indian Constitution as a living document
and should essentially be free to legislate. So there's there's not a sort of
strong tradition of judicial restraint which makesthis decision just you know, uh,
ten days ago or two weeks ago, of enormous importance. Part of all
(26:04):
we didn't hear about it very muchin the media is precisely because it went
the way that it did. Imagineif the Supreme Court of the world's largest
country had decided that same sex marriageyou know, was constitutionally required, we
would have been hearing about it.We would have been hearing about it for
days and days and days we wouldhave been hearing about the direction of history.
(26:27):
We would have been hearing about howthe world's largest democracy has spoken given
the decision we had. You know, we heard almost you had crickets,
you know, from Western Western Eventhough this is a great significance. But
the other factor is that Indian societyis quite traditional and conservative, and interestingly,
(26:53):
Hindus have a view of marriage thatis very similar to the Catholic view
of marriage in several very striking respects. It may be that there is no
civilization or religious tradition in the worldthat has a view of marriage closer to
(27:14):
the distinctively Catholic view of marriage thanHinduism. And I'll give you a couple
of examples. One is that Hinduismhas traditionally always viewed marriage as a sacrament.
It has a distinctively religious meaning.It's not just a contract. In
Islam, marriage is essentially a contract. In the reformed traditions of Christianity,
(27:41):
marriage is not a sacrament. It'ssort of contractual. In many cultures,
marriage is really much more a contractin a sacrament. Obviously, in our
tradition, marriage is a sacrament,one of the seven sacraments. It has
an enormous significance and symbolizing God's lovefor humanity. Between Christ and the Church.
(28:03):
Hindus have a remarkably deeply sacramental viewof marriage between a man and a
woman. It's a religious significance inpart because of Hindu narratives like the Ramayana,
in which the relationship between Rama andSita is central. So that's one
respect. The other respect is thatin which they're similar is that Hindus believe
(28:26):
that marriage is indissoluble. It cannotit cannot be ended. A valid marriage
is permanent period. There can't bedivorce validly. So the traditional view is
just the Catholic view. And thethird area in which is agreement is that
(28:47):
the traditional view in Hinduism is thatmarriage is is irreducibly linked to appropriation and
the rearing of children. Marriage isabout having a family. It's not about
two people, uh just two people. So in these respects, Hindu culture
(29:07):
and civilization have nourished an understanding ofmarriage. It's profoundly odds with the sort
of you know, uh view thatmake same sex marriage even conceivable in the
Western mind. Uh So there's aso you've had judicial sanity and you also
(29:29):
have a deep fund of civilizational sanityuh in India. Uh So, so
both these things together helped generate thethe the decision of the Supreme Court.
Besides the fact that a whole rangeof religious communities and leaders in India came
together. I mentioned earlier that Gandhiwould be unhappy about the religious divisions in
(29:55):
India. There was one thing thatunited the entire spec of religious communities in
India, Jane's Seekhs, Protestants,Catholics, Muslims, Shia and Sunni Hindus
of all kinds. One thing broughtthem together in the last few months over
and over again opposition to same sexmarriage. They stood together in various platforms,
(30:23):
made joint statements. And this isone area, by the way,
where we have to give great creditto the Hindu nationalist government of India,
which I don't think is perfect.There are problems with Hindu nationalisms we can
discuss, but Hindu nationalism has avery traditional view of marriage because of the
(30:45):
reasons I cited earlier. And theBJP government argued vociferously against the Supreme Court
accepting the legitimacy of same sex marriage, and the JP Solicitor General made extremely
powerful and eloquent arguments, often citinguh Western social scientists that we respect h
(31:11):
against same sex marriage. So wehave to, you know, UH gratefully
acknowledged the positive role that the HinduNationalist government played in this respect. A
left wing Congress Party government would havebeen in favor of same sex marriage.
Uh. And you know, ifif a Congress government were in power,
(31:36):
it's possible there could have been adifferent outcome. That's a fascinating explanation of
how all these factors came together.Gosh, Mario, Well, let me
(31:56):
that's a question, which is II heard that you presented at the Maritime
Association conference last year a paper onintegralism, and I don't know if I'm
correct saying this is the dangerous integralismthe Catholic tradition, which is many people
(32:22):
have been proposing for years. Whenyou are describing India, or rather well
India inclination toward tradition rather than modernity, and all that you are describing also
the history of Latin America, therejection basically of some liberal principles and so
(32:45):
on, and so because of that, the proposed the proposal has been always
with some exception, favoring the confessionalstate. Integalism many in many forms,
and so the whole history was changedwhen the Christian Democrats began thinking about a
(33:14):
different way of religion, religion andpolitics and state and church and so on.
So if with this backgrowd, whatis your concern about integralism, because
it seems that integral is what theytried to do is precisely what you are
(33:36):
describing, not just fragmenting that traditionalculture which holds certain value which are very
close to the heart of the people. And so what what do you say?
What do you have to say aboutthat? That's an excellent question.
(34:00):
I'm sure I won't have an altogethercoherent answer, but here's here's the basics
of what I would say. Ithink that there are two dangers with integralism,
broadly speaking, and I think thehistory of Christianity bears these dangers out.
(34:21):
One danger is that in the longrun, integralist regimes we can think
of the Byzantine Eastern Orthodox regimes,the Emperor Justinian saying these regimes in the
(34:43):
end almost always fundamentally gut the freedomof the church. The church becomes a
kind of apparatus, a subordinate apparatusand a tool of state power in a
way that robs the Church of itsability to to to do what Christ founded
(35:07):
it to do. Uh, toto to preach the Gospel, to bear
witness to eternal truth, to speaktruth to political power. You see a
kind of you know, uh,subordinationism. What you know what Max Weber
(35:28):
called cesero papism. Uh. Thiswas a danger of course, even you
know in the Western Church as well, it reached a kind of apotheosis and
Charlemagne. But you know this isthis of course was a constant issue.
But it became of course the reasonwhy you know, Gregory you know,
(35:52):
institutes the growing reforms. It's theissue in the investiture controversy. The Western
Church has to literally spends hundreds ofyears eking out freedom for itself, and
early on you you read church fatherseven you know, in the third fourth
(36:15):
centuries after Constantine, who say,you know what, it really was actually
better when we were being persecuted becausewe had we have much more to fear
from friendly Christian emperors than we didfrom pagan persecutors, because our very heart
(36:36):
and soul in a sense are beingsort of corrupted by the sort of friendly
and ate of the of the state. The other danger of integralism is that
it tends to undermine a core principleof our faith, which is that the
(36:57):
act of faith must be free,uh, and that the the human person
has an inal and inalienable duty andtherefore an inalienable right uh to seek the
truth and follow the truth. Accordingto the dictates of conscience and innervalist regimes,
(37:22):
well, even if they profess torespect certain boundaries and respect freedom of
conscience, invariably trespass on fundamental freedomof of of conscience, which, by
the way, UH, you know, our faith articulates very very clearly,
(37:43):
not only in the New Testament,but uh. Church fathers, beginning extremely
early, make it absolutely clear thatGod created human beings with reason and will
and inalienable dignity, such that therights to religious freedom was inaniable. Triutalian
(38:04):
articulates this extremely early in his Apologyand his letter to Scapula. Lactantius articulates
this, and it's a constant themeof the early church fathers. Sadly,
when you get a kind of integralismafter Constantine, this principle almost immediately begins
to be disrespected. So I meanthose are two dangers. Now your question
(38:30):
is, well, if you havefreedom of religion, then don't you have
the opposite problem. You then createa kind of society of indifference and decadence.
And I think the answer is thatthe ideal that we need to work
toward is creating cultures that favor thereligious lives of their citizens, but on
(39:00):
terms that respect freedom of conscience andrespect the autonomy and independence the libertas ecclesia.
You know of the church and otherreligious organizations. Just to give one
example, Indonesia, a country thatI know well and you mentioned I work
with the Muslims in Indonesia. Indonesiais a fascinating country because it's simultaneously not
(39:24):
a secular state, nor is itan Islamic republic. It is a it
is a it has you could say, a pluralistic religious establishment, whereby the
government expressly favors and encourages without controlling, the religious lives of all of the
(39:44):
major religious communities in Indonesia. Sosix religions are officially recognized, that they're
all given support and encouragement by agovernment that's not secular, but it's also
not Islamic. So you and asense have a multi confessional, pluralistic,
non secular state, and it seemsto me that we should be working with
(40:09):
our religious, uh you know,fellow citizens who may not share our faith,
but who are religious and I don'twant to, you know, live
in a society that has a nakedpublic square, but also don't want to
live in a society that that forceson them religion that's not their own.
We should be working towards creating agovernment and a culture that really favors positively
(40:35):
the religious lives of of of allour citizens. Easier said than done,
of course, but but I thinkthere is a way to navigate the you
know, and avoid the extremes ofa kind of secular differentism and and integraalism,
both of which are deadly and dangerous. And liberalism as such, you
(41:00):
know, is absolutely not not,not an appropriate full understanding of the human
person or politics and inner Balista areright to point out the fatal flaws of
liberalism of various sorts. Thank you, Yeah, Valerie. We have a
(41:29):
frieze here from we have a freeze, hopefully not a deep freeze. She's
looking really looking very happy though she'sread she froze at a happy moment all
we're while we're waiting here. Uh. I don't think many Americans are even
(41:52):
aware of this Indonesian model. Idon't think that, yeah, exceptional is
on the screen even No, it'snot. We we haven't impoverished. Uh.
I think sense of of the options. You know, there there are
(42:12):
other other other forms of managing therelationship between religious state that avoid secularism and
integralism. It seems to me thatfor most Americans, the single memorable event
(42:36):
in Indonesia, this is probably forAmericans more of Mario's generation, all your
seniors, uh, is the theabsolute suppression of communism in Indonesia. Yes,
it was as violent as we canimagine. Yes, yes, Indonesians
(43:05):
you know still speak about that periodas a very very dark period. I
will say in defense of you know, those who were involved in the suppression
that and by the way, Catholicsand Muslims worked side by side to suppress
communism in nineteen sixty five, workingwith the CIA as well. Catholics were
(43:32):
very much involved. One has toremember that Indonesia had the third largest communist
party in the world. Indonesian communistsinitiated a terribly vicious and bloody coup in
which top Indonesian generals were murdered,and there was a sense that this was
(43:58):
a terrible, terrible threat. IfIndonesia had become communists in that period,
it is it's unfathomable what might havehappened, not only to Indonesia, but
the entirety of Southeast Asia and perhapsAsia as a whole. You would have
had something like Paul Pott's Cambodia ona massive scale. And so those were
(44:24):
the stakes. That doesn't justify thekilling of, you know, innocent people
and the kind of the killings ona mass scale which occurred. And yet
the choices that people at the timehad to make were very, very,
very very difficult ones. Indeed,so often the more one knows about international
(44:52):
events or even events in one's owncountry, the more complicated and tangled they
turns out. Yes, yeah,right, yes, yet another reason why
we have to hear from many peoplein an atmosphere that allows them to be
really heard. Valerie, we've beenadding more thoughts to Indonesia. Please take
(45:19):
us forward. Well, not surewhat you covered. I was thinking when
you were talking before my computer justrandomly shut down about mother Teresa's quote about
helping Muslims become better Muslims, Hindusbecome better Hindus. And it sounds to
me like this is the kind ofgovernment and culture that you are kind of
proposing. And I don't know ifyou, I don't know if you identified.
(45:44):
You know, you've clearly take ayou know, your life has led
you to take an interest in thisissue of religious freedom and how it plays
out not just governmentally but also culturally. So I'm curious how you've kind of
come along that path and why you'redoing what you're doing in life. And
then also if you have anything elseto say about, you know, the
(46:07):
key challenges in our moment to religiousfreedom, not only in India but throughout
the world. Sure well. Iwas raised in a remarkably inter religious household.
My mother is a Welsh German background, a person growing up in Wisconsin
(46:29):
who met my father, who wasfrom Bombay Jane background, and they were
married in nineteen sixty seven at atime when there were not a lot of
interracial marriages in Milwaukee. And theyraised us and my brother and me in
a household where I remember very clearlymany evenings we had we had family prayers
(46:53):
and my mother would lead us inthe Lord's prayer, and my father would
lead us in a jane chant inhis native language of Gujarati. So I
never really thought that this was odd. It seemed very natural. I later
became a committed evangelical Christian. Andthen, you know, not that long
(47:16):
ago, seven years ago or soeight years ago now, my wife and
I became Catholics. We've spent lotsof time in India. My wife is
from India. So religious pluralism isnot something that is a distant reality.
It's something that you live. Youknow, we have Muslim neighbors, and
(47:37):
there's a mosque very close to ourhouse, so on Friday we can hear
the Imam preach and we hear thecult to prayer. And there's a Catholic
church close enough that usually around sevenin the evening, especially during Lent,
we can hear the Catholic church hasan a loudspeaker uh, an instrumental version
(48:00):
of of of Ave Maria. Andwe've got Hindu temples all over the place.
So uh, you know, akind of vibrant u in your face.
Religious pluralism is just very a verynatural part of one's environment, and
it and it sort of makes youreflect on, well, you know,
(48:21):
how, how how can this workin a way that maximizes the flourishing of
ordinary people? And I think whatMother Trees they had to say was was
right. Of course. You know, we we Catholics have uh, you
know, a duty to to uhdo what Christ commanded and the great commission
(48:43):
to go make disciples of all nations, baptizing them the name of the Father
and the Son in the Holy Spirit. That's that's an that's it is an
you know, uh, non negotiableaspect of our faith. And it's something
that we you know, we wewe joy tell those you know, non
Christian friends of ours who might wonderabout our exclusivism, but we then have
(49:07):
to explain that, you know,we believe, in a sense, we
exclusively believe in a God who wasmaximally inclusive. I mean, he,
the God we believe in, stretchedout his arms wide on the cross to
include everyone in his embrace. Andwe have a God who is in himself
(49:30):
a community of persons. So thereis so precisely our theological exclusivism creates a
radical inclusivity, you know, preciselythe dogmas of our faith that that people
might think are the most dogmatic andproblematic. Actually are what make it possible
(49:57):
for us to engage robustly in loveingdialogue and and and witness in a way
that's respectful but also doesn't doesn't givegive up an inch in terms of the
distinctiveness of our of our orthodoxy.And you know, I've wanted to sort
of develop these ideas, and youknow, we're in the process of developing
(50:17):
these ideas in order to uh,you know, create a deeper dialogue with
with Hindu leaders and interlocutors who arevery, very open. I've developed friendships
with very senior Hindu leaders, bothon the political and religious side. I've
developed a wonderful friendship with a verysenior Hindu swami who is a celibate monk
(50:42):
in a in a remarkable movement.I've developed friendships with the Hindu Nationalists.
Memory leaders of the Hindu nationalist movement. Many of them don't really have any
background of understanding of Western Christianity.They really really don't have any knowledge of
what Catholics Christians actually believe. Thevery superficial understanding, but so you know
(51:08):
it it In some ways, itcan be easy to overcome certain misconceptions the
moment they hear just a basic presentationof what Christians believe. They many misconceptions
are removed, but we have muchdeeper work to do as well. Certainly,
(51:28):
I think doctrines like the Trinity andthe Incarnation, though they might seem
the very things that make dialogue difficultagain, actually can be precisely a basis
for us to to to engage.Hindus are big on pluralism when they hear
that our very understanding of God isin a sense, I mean diversity,
(51:51):
is a kind of diversity baked intothe nature of God himself. And this
is a you know again a basisfor us to come to uh, you
know, respectful mutual understanding. Sothanks be to God, we're working with
Father Thomas Joseph White, Director Magnificusof the Angelica, to have a Hindu
(52:14):
Catholic dialogue at the Angelica next yearinvolving very senior Catholic theologians and leaders and
then senior Hindu leaders where hopefully wecan go deeper into into these kinds of
issues. Now, if if you'reopen to working with Hillbilly Thomassim, that
(52:39):
fits in well with your carrying onall your activities at the University of Dallas.
How did that come about? It's, oh, Jim, five minutes
after it's already five minutes after ten. Ah. This happens to us all
the time, just as no fair. Oh, given our given our lack
(53:04):
of external funding, we have toend on a timely fashion. And that's
absolutely fine. And we all thetime flew by, at least on my
side, certainly certainly on our side. Uh. We always end with the
(53:25):
Gospel of the day is the Feastof all saints. Yes, so we
have from Matthew. When Jesus sawthe crowds, he went up the mountain,
and after he had sat down,his disciples came to him. He
began to teach them, saying,Blessed are the poor in spirit, for
(53:45):
theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.Blessed are they who mourn, or they
will be comforted. Blessed are themeek, or they will inherit the land.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirstfor righteousness us, for they will
be satisfied. Blessed are the merciful, for they will be showing mercy.
(54:06):
Blessed are the clean of heart,for they will see God Blessed are the
peacemakers, for they will be calledchildren of God. Blessed are they who
are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, For theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
Blessed are you when they insult youand persecute you and utter every kind
(54:28):
of evil against you falsely because ofme, Rejoice and be glad, for
your reward will be great in heaven. Lord Jesus, con Amen, thank
you, Thank you, Mum somuch of the thank you, Thank you
(54:49):
well. What a joy was tobe with you, Mario and Valerie,
to meet you and Jim as alwayslove being with you. God, spe
take care and I'll go buy alottery ticket in the hopes of bringing my
family to India and saying, okay, you please, all you have to
do is get here. We'll takecare of the rest. Thank you,
(55:12):
Thank you, I'll bless you.Thank you so much. Hello, God's
beloved. I'm Annabel Moseley, author, professor of theology, and host of
then Sings My Soul and Destination Sainthoodon WCAT Radio. I invite you to
listen in and find inspiration along thissacred journey we're traveling together to make our
(55:34):
lives a masterpiece and with God's grace, become saints. Join me Annabel Moseley
for then sings My Soul and DestinationSainthood on WCAT Radio. God bless you.
Remember you are never alone. Godis always with you. Thank you
(55:59):
for listening to it. Production ofWCAT Radio. Please join us in our
mission of evangelization and don't forget.Love lifts up where knowledge takes flight
You're listening to w c A TRadio, your home for authentic Catholic programming.
Welcome to the Open Door, ashow based on the words in Revelation,
I have left an open door beforeyou which no one can close.
This is w c AT Radio's longestrunning show, which opened the door to
(00:22):
the radio station in October twenty sixteen. It's currently offered by Jim Hanninck,
Mario Ramo's Reyes and Friends and remainsopen to the love of God in its
call to build a culture of lifeand a just social order. Through the
panel's discussion of the Catholic social teachingprinciples of solidarity, subsidiarity, and economic
(00:47):
democracy. The Open Door also exploresnonviolence, distributism and communitarianism. So join
us at the Open Door where youtwo can be part of the conversation.
Welcome to the Open Door. JimHannick here with fellow panelists Mario Ramas,
(01:10):
Reyes and Valerie Niemeyer. Today wediscuss India, religious freedom and Thomism.
Our distinguished guest as Professor Timothy Shawof the University of Dallas by training in
Personal Passion. He is a scholarof politics and political philosophy, specializing in
(01:37):
religion and global politics, religious freedom, and the history of moral and political
theory. With his wife, RebeccahShaw, he is based in Bengalore,
India. With Rebecca, he hasestablished several initiatives in partnership with the University
of Dallas, including a Jacques andraisean program on Catholicism, public life,
(02:04):
and world affairs. Under the auspicesof the Maritan Program, Professor Shock coordinates
a monthly online Thimistic Study Circle whichinvolves expert and amateur thomass around the world
and which seeks to re enliven anappreciation of the common doctor's timeless teaching and
(02:28):
relevance, especially for public affairs.Most recently, he and Rebecca established a
program for Indo American Understanding and Friendshipat Gupta College of Business at the University
of Dallas. The program seeks topromote deep dialogue and genuine understanding between Hinduism
(02:53):
and Catholic Christianity. In addition toserving as Distinguished Research Scholar at the Politics
Department at the University of Dallas,Shaw also serves as Director of Strategic Initiatives
for the Center for Shared Civilizational Values, an organization which he founded with senior
(03:16):
leaders of the world's largest Muslim organization, not on latul Ulama in Indonesia,
in order to strengthen a rules basedinternational order founded upon respect for the equal
rights and dignity of every human person. As always, let's begin in prayer,
(03:46):
Holy Spirit, fill the hearts ofthe painful and kindle them the fire
of your love. Send forth yourspirit, and they shall be created,
and you shall renew the face theearth. God, who have taught the
hearts of the faithful by the lightof the Holy Spirit, granted in the
(04:08):
same spirit, we may be trulywise had ever rejoiced in his consolations through
Christ Stylloyd Amen, Professor Shah Tim, if we may, how can Americans
better understand India, which is nowthe most populous nation in the world.
(04:36):
Well, I think there's no betterway than to come and spend time in
India. You know, you canread about the place, and you can
read rabindagor whom we were talking aboutjust a moment ago before we started recording.
(04:57):
You know, there are great novelsand books and you could read about
great Indians like Gandhi and Nehru andothers. But there's really no substitute for
coming and immersing yourself in India.And my wife and I have a personal
passion to get more Americans to comeand spend time in India. So my
(05:19):
final answer to your question is,come and spend time with Becky and me
in our house here in Bangalore.We've got spare bedrooms. We would throw
out a welcome to anyone and everyonelistening that we'd love to have you stay
with us. And that's that's theway to see and experience India in the
(05:39):
in the home of Indians who loveIndia and who would love to share and
show you what an amazing civilization andcontinent, more than a country, India
is. What an invitation. Ihadn't expected that. I recommend you and
(06:01):
Valerie and Mario and Valerie six kidsor you're all well done. Ario,
What question would you like to takeus to? Well, I'm just scheduling
my trip to India. Well,you talk about Tagore and and I remember
(06:30):
my father was a physician. Hewas a good reader of Tagore. I'm
talking about the sixties and seventies.He was translated into Spanish by Jesuits.
But the figure, the man whoeveryone admired then was Madma Gandhi. Yes,
(06:53):
my question is what do you thinkGandhi would have said today of India.
It's a wonderful question. Well,Gandhi uh was a fierce anti modernist.
He was profoundly opposed to many featuresof modernity that we take for granted,
(07:18):
industrialization, uh. He hated modernforms of travel. He had a
fundamental hostility to the nation state.As such, he was of course committed
to non violence. So I thinkif if he were to, you know,
(07:40):
find himself in modern India, Ithink he would be deeply distressed by
many aspects of India. He'd behorrified that India has the third largest standing
army in the world. He'd behorrified that India is a nuclear power.
He would be horrified by the rapidityof economic modernization, industrialization. I think
(08:03):
he'd be horrified by urbanization in India. And I think too, there's no
doubt that he would be saddened bythe fact that his vision of an India
in which Hindus and Muslims and Christiansand Jains and Seekhs would live peacefully together,
(08:24):
that that vision is unfortunately in manyrespects, not being realized in today's
India. He'd be saddened that today'sIndia is I think it's fair to say
increasingly distant from a Gandhian vision ofa peacefully pluralistic society. I think too,
(08:48):
he would no question be very unhappyabout the fact that India is positioning
itself in the world in a waythat is very muscular. It's foreign policy,
it's positioning visa B countries such asChina, Pakistan, even its positioning
(09:09):
in the current Gaza war is increasinglyyou could say, muscular and self assertive.
And I think that Gandhi would findthis all very distressing. Interestingly,
I was remembering something that's really interestingand it helps to connect India and Tomism
(09:31):
and other topics will be discussing ina few minutes, namely that Jacques Maratan
was really deep admirer of Gandhi.As I'm sure the experts on Maratan speaking
to are aware, he went outof his way, Jacques Maratan to express
admiration for Gandhi at a time whenGandhi was not really that well known in
(09:56):
the late twenties early thirties. Hemade a a lot of the fact that
Gandhi used what Maratan called pure meansin achieving his political ends. Maritian was
of course very concerned about the purityof means in his political philosophy, and
he consistently elevates Gandhi as relief kindof the main example of a practitioner of
(10:22):
of of pure means in achieving hissocial and political goals. Uh So,
before you know, many other Westernersreally were aware of Gandhi's significance. Dock
Maratan was very aware and something ofa careful student of Gandhi, which all
of which I think is just justfascinating and deserves further study. Well,
(10:48):
so we can't we can't hear onthanks, we would love to hear Gandhi
himself commentate on on things, butwe do have other voices and our mid
It's calling attention to the political andmilitary implications of the developing relations between the
United States and India. And canyou explain for us there something of what's
(11:09):
at stake in the US India relationship. Yes, well, you could argue
that nothing less than the future ofthe world is at stake. It's been
said, and I agree that themost important bilateral relationship in the world today,
(11:33):
bar none, is the relationship betweenthe United States and India. India,
as noted a moment ago, recentlybecame the world's most populous country.
It is among the world's most youthfulcountries. It is a very dynamic society
(11:56):
with rapid economic growth, and it'sheft in Asia and the world is growing.
At the same time, we knowthat the United States, in terms
of its power and influence in theworld, is a rapidly declining power relative
to the power of other societies.I don't have a pollyannish view about the
(12:18):
role of America and the world affairs. I don't think America has always played
a very positive role in world affairs. But I would say that the United
States has been an indispensable element inbuilding the post World War two architecture of
a rules based international order, includinga robust human rights regime based on the
(12:43):
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Andas America's power declines, the stability of
a rules based international order, aswe're seeing all around us, is also
under threat. And it's crucial forthe United States to find partners whose power
(13:07):
is growing, who do have avalues based a moral interest in a rules
based international order, as opposed tothose countries that want to revise or weaken,
or even overthrow a rules based internationalorder in service of their self interested
(13:28):
geopolitical agendas. Countries like Iran,China, Russia are not interested in preserving
a rules based international order. Indiais interested in preserving and strengthening a rules
based international order. It is notinterested in preserving and strengthening a rules based
(13:48):
international order that gives disproportional influence tothe West. It's not interested in preserving
an international order in which it continuesto not have a eat on the UN
Security Council. But it's broadly interestedin an international order that is rules based,
that respects basic human rights, thatrespects the sovereignty of nations, that
(14:16):
is multilateral. So while India iscertainly not a Western country, it's not
a pro Western country. It doesn'twant to preserve Western hegemony. It wants
a world order that is more balancedand multilateral. But this is a crucial
point. I recently heard the Indianforeg ministers say this at a meeting I
(14:37):
attended in Washington. India may notbe non Western, but it is not
anti Western. It is very eagerto partner with the West, particularly the
United States, in defining and upholdinga new form of a rules based international
order. So it's absolutely that thisrelationship between the United States and India and
(15:03):
my view, continue to flourish andexpand. It's not just for the sake
of the interests of these two particularcountries, but the stability of the broadly
speaking, post war international order,including the United Nations Charter, which uh,
you know was profoundly influenced by Christiandemocracy and the ideas of Jacques Maritan
(15:28):
and the University Declation of Human Rights. If if these things matter to us,
if these things are worth preserving,then the relationship with the United States
and India is absolutely crucial. UHand UH and you know, of the
utmost importance, not least because Indiais on the frontier of an increasingly assertive
(15:50):
China. UH. And the surestway to provide a basis for a kind
of equanimity and balance once in Asiais to strengthen India. UH. An
Asian which India is stronger, isnot going to be in Asia that China
will be able to dominate. Sothat's another respect in which this relationship is
(16:14):
is of great importance. Pardon thelong winded geopolitical analysis. That's very helpful,
Thank you. Yeah, No,we welcome that, Tim, We
welcome it very much. I havea current question, but I want to
go back just a bit for asidebar question. Sure, good George Washington,
(16:41):
Mahatma Gandhi. There they are together, right right, Washington says.
Washington says, don't dabble with politicalparties. He was opposed to political parties,
yes, and and he also saiddon't get involved with other countries.
(17:03):
Yes, he was an isolationist.Yeah to Gandhi and Washington have anything to
say after Washington, who came,of course well before Gandhi. Lets Gandhi
know what his view was. I'mnot sure I understand the question, Jim.
Well, that's what people often saywhen I so Washington, we know
(17:33):
is opposed to political parties, andwe're entangled in political parties with the exception
of one political party. And Washingtonalso warned against any involvement with foreign countries.
Right now, So Gandhi hears whatWashington has to say, not having
(17:56):
heard it before, perhaps, andwhat what might Gandhi say that Washington and
what my Washington say to Gandhi?And what would you say to them?
Understand right? Right? Well,that's it's it's fascinating you you ask,
I mean, just off the cuff. I think they, these two respective
(18:18):
fathers of their nations, H inmany ways, did have a great deal
in common. You know. Theythey favored you know, versions of their
societies that were you know, insome way sadly rapidly becoming obsolete. They
they favored H you could say,more agrarian or in Ghandhi's case, more
(18:42):
village based life, you know.Washington Jefferson were I think, you know,
perhaps similar in this respect. Theyworried about moneyed interests, big banks.
Gandhi had the same concerns. Though. It's also to point out that
Gandhi's whole ability to live the simplelife that he lived depended on the generosity
(19:07):
of very wealthy Indian industrialists like theTatas. You know, he was heavily
funded, uh, you know,to to do what he did, and
the you know, the entire Uyou know movement that Gandhi led over many
decades was expensive. Actually. UhSo that's a kind of interesting you know,
I irony there. But you know, broadly speaking, they were you
(19:32):
know, concerned about the corruption ofof commerce, uh and and business in
some ways not unlike and not unlikeThomas Aquinas you know, reading Thomas aquinances
on on Kingship, its striking howuh diffident and even critical Saint Thomas was
(19:52):
about the dangers of excessive wealth andand and excessive business activity, you know,
were to the health and the virtueof of of of a of a
polity. And it's also true thatthat they both hoped for uh political uh
(20:17):
dynamics and deliberation that were consensual ratherthan divisive and uh and adversarial as you
as you say, you know,Washington didn't didn't like political parties, was
worried about faction, and Gandhi wasdeeply distressed by political uh division, religious
(20:40):
division, cast division. Really hopedthat these these differences could be transcended.
So you could say, though,in criticism of them both, that they
that they just were naive about whatmodernity inevitably brings, that modernity empowers people
(21:03):
to think for themselves. Gandhi arguablyhad one big weakness, which was that
he tended to be very paternalistic towardslower casts, including dolets or untouchables.
He famously called dollets, which meansthe broken, I mean the very lowest
cast people. He called them HariJohn's which means children of God. And
(21:25):
he arguably had a very naive viewabout, you know, the the ability
of traditional Indian society to really takecare of the lower casts. He thought
that the cast system was in principlenot a bad thing, it just needed
to be reinterpreted. And uh,you know this, this betrayed arguably a
(21:48):
kind of naive and even you know, destructive, destructively paternalistic understanding of Indian
society, even as modernity was empoweringall kinds of different classes and groups in
India to articulate for themselves what theywanted for for India. That is a
(22:11):
very helpful comparison. I'm going tomove on to here and now question very
recent development. But I would liketo point out that here on the Open
Door, we have never been naiveabout the dangers of external funding. We've
(22:33):
resisted funding resolutely. Fact we don'teven have internal funding. You're keeping yourselves
absolutely pure. Good for you,robbing, I dik to. This is
(22:55):
our two and seventy first episode.Uh no one can say that we haven't
been episodic, but but here weare now to be serious again. Uh,
India's Supreme Court, yes, recentlydeclined to recognize same sex marriage.
(23:19):
Uh, insisting that it was amatter for the legislature. Uh what what
factors went into this decision? Andhow will the legislature respond to the court's
direction. I could I could makeequip and say that, oh ahead,
(23:41):
go ahead, this is the opendoor. Were equip centered show? Uh,
the Nscreme Court was seized by afit of sanity and reasonableness. I
mean, that's really what explains it. I mean, here here was an
invitation to five member bench of theIndian Supreme Court to impose by judicial fiat
(24:08):
a view of marriage completely alien tothe traditions of one point four billion people.
This should not have been even youknow, entertained as a close call.
As it was, the five memberbench was somewhat split. Thankfully,
(24:30):
the majority prevailed and the court declinedto again imposed by judicial fiat same sex
marriage. So my equip was theywere seized by, you know, a
fit of sanity and reasonableness, andthat that that's true. They they they
(24:52):
realized that that that this was inherentlyproblematic. They didn't opine that same sex
marriage was inherent problematic as such.They simply said that this is a matter
for you know, the parliament,the Indian Parliament to decide by democratic deliberation
and democratic methods. Very sane.So I think the you know, the
(25:17):
Indian Supreme Court, which is notfamous for its restraint. By the way,
many Indian justices have traditionally had anextremely expansive understanding of their authority and
powers. Uh. The influential judicialjudicial expert and former Supreme Court Justice Falling
Narahan has argued that, you know, the Indian Supreme Court basically should be
(25:41):
free, you know, to totreat the Indian Constitution as a living document
and should essentially be free to legislate. So there's there's not a sort of
strong tradition of judicial restraint which makesthis decision just you know, uh,
ten days ago or two weeks ago, of enormous importance. Part of all
(26:04):
we didn't hear about it very muchin the media is precisely because it went
the way that it did. Imagineif the Supreme Court of the world's largest
country had decided that same sex marriageyou know, was constitutionally required, we
would have been hearing about it.We would have been hearing about it for
days and days and days we wouldhave been hearing about the direction of history.
(26:27):
We would have been hearing about howthe world's largest democracy has spoken given
the decision we had. You know, we heard almost you had crickets,
you know, from Western Western Eventhough this is a great significance. But
the other factor is that Indian societyis quite traditional and conservative, and interestingly,
(26:53):
Hindus have a view of marriage thatis very similar to the Catholic view
of marriage in several very striking respects. It may be that there is no
civilization or religious tradition in the worldthat has a view of marriage closer to
(27:14):
the distinctively Catholic view of marriage thanHinduism. And I'll give you a couple
of examples. One is that Hinduismhas traditionally always viewed marriage as a sacrament.
It has a distinctively religious meaning.It's not just a contract. In
Islam, marriage is essentially a contract. In the reformed traditions of Christianity,
(27:41):
marriage is not a sacrament. It'ssort of contractual. In many cultures,
marriage is really much more a contractin a sacrament. Obviously, in our
tradition, marriage is a sacrament,one of the seven sacraments. It has
an enormous significance and symbolizing God's lovefor humanity. Between Christ and the Church.
(28:03):
Hindus have a remarkably deeply sacramental viewof marriage between a man and a
woman. It's a religious significance inpart because of Hindu narratives like the Ramayana,
in which the relationship between Rama andSita is central. So that's one
respect. The other respect is thatin which they're similar is that Hindus believe
(28:26):
that marriage is indissoluble. It cannotit cannot be ended. A valid marriage
is permanent period. There can't bedivorce validly. So the traditional view is
just the Catholic view. And thethird area in which is agreement is that
(28:47):
the traditional view in Hinduism is thatmarriage is is irreducibly linked to appropriation and
the rearing of children. Marriage isabout having a family. It's not about
two people, uh just two people. So in these respects, Hindu culture
(29:07):
and civilization have nourished an understanding ofmarriage. It's profoundly odds with the sort
of you know, uh view thatmake same sex marriage even conceivable in the
Western mind. Uh So there's aso you've had judicial sanity and you also
(29:29):
have a deep fund of civilizational sanityuh in India. Uh So, so
both these things together helped generate thethe the decision of the Supreme Court.
Besides the fact that a whole rangeof religious communities and leaders in India came
together. I mentioned earlier that Gandhiwould be unhappy about the religious divisions in
(29:55):
India. There was one thing thatunited the entire spec of religious communities in
India, Jane's Seekhs, Protestants,Catholics, Muslims, Shia and Sunni Hindus
of all kinds. One thing broughtthem together in the last few months over
and over again opposition to same sexmarriage. They stood together in various platforms,
(30:23):
made joint statements. And this isone area, by the way,
where we have to give great creditto the Hindu nationalist government of India,
which I don't think is perfect.There are problems with Hindu nationalisms we can
discuss, but Hindu nationalism has avery traditional view of marriage because of the
(30:45):
reasons I cited earlier. And theBJP government argued vociferously against the Supreme Court
accepting the legitimacy of same sex marriage, and the JP Solicitor General made extremely
powerful and eloquent arguments, often citinguh Western social scientists that we respect h
(31:11):
against same sex marriage. So wehave to, you know, UH gratefully
acknowledged the positive role that the HinduNationalist government played in this respect. A
left wing Congress Party government would havebeen in favor of same sex marriage.
Uh. And you know, ifif a Congress government were in power,
(31:36):
it's possible there could have been adifferent outcome. That's a fascinating explanation of
how all these factors came together.Gosh, Mario, Well, let me
(31:56):
that's a question, which is II heard that you presented at the Maritime
Association conference last year a paper onintegralism, and I don't know if I'm
correct saying this is the dangerous integralismthe Catholic tradition, which is many people
(32:22):
have been proposing for years. Whenyou are describing India, or rather well
India inclination toward tradition rather than modernity, and all that you are describing also
the history of Latin America, therejection basically of some liberal principles and so
(32:45):
on, and so because of that, the proposed the proposal has been always
with some exception, favoring the confessionalstate. Integalism many in many forms,
and so the whole history was changedwhen the Christian Democrats began thinking about a
(33:14):
different way of religion, religion andpolitics and state and church and so on.
So if with this backgrowd, whatis your concern about integralism, because
it seems that integral is what theytried to do is precisely what you are
(33:36):
describing, not just fragmenting that traditionalculture which holds certain value which are very
close to the heart of the people. And so what what do you say?
What do you have to say aboutthat? That's an excellent question.
(34:00):
I'm sure I won't have an altogethercoherent answer, but here's here's the basics
of what I would say. Ithink that there are two dangers with integralism,
broadly speaking, and I think thehistory of Christianity bears these dangers out.
(34:21):
One danger is that in the longrun, integralist regimes we can think
of the Byzantine Eastern Orthodox regimes,the Emperor Justinian saying these regimes in the
(34:43):
end almost always fundamentally gut the freedomof the church. The church becomes a
kind of apparatus, a subordinate apparatusand a tool of state power in a
way that robs the Church of itsability to to to do what Christ founded
(35:07):
it to do. Uh, toto to preach the Gospel, to bear
witness to eternal truth, to speaktruth to political power. You see a
kind of you know, uh,subordinationism. What you know what Max Weber
(35:28):
called cesero papism. Uh. Thiswas a danger of course, even you
know in the Western Church as well, it reached a kind of apotheosis and
Charlemagne. But you know this isthis of course was a constant issue.
But it became of course the reasonwhy you know, Gregory you know,
(35:52):
institutes the growing reforms. It's theissue in the investiture controversy. The Western
Church has to literally spends hundreds ofyears eking out freedom for itself, and
early on you you read church fatherseven you know, in the third fourth
(36:15):
centuries after Constantine, who say,you know what, it really was actually
better when we were being persecuted becausewe had we have much more to fear
from friendly Christian emperors than we didfrom pagan persecutors, because our very heart
(36:36):
and soul in a sense are beingsort of corrupted by the sort of friendly
and ate of the of the state. The other danger of integralism is that
it tends to undermine a core principleof our faith, which is that the
(36:57):
act of faith must be free,uh, and that the the human person
has an inal and inalienable duty andtherefore an inalienable right uh to seek the
truth and follow the truth. Accordingto the dictates of conscience and innervalist regimes,
(37:22):
well, even if they profess torespect certain boundaries and respect freedom of
conscience, invariably trespass on fundamental freedomof of of conscience, which, by
the way, UH, you know, our faith articulates very very clearly,
(37:43):
not only in the New Testament,but uh. Church fathers, beginning extremely
early, make it absolutely clear thatGod created human beings with reason and will
and inalienable dignity, such that therights to religious freedom was inaniable. Triutalian
(38:04):
articulates this extremely early in his Apologyand his letter to Scapula. Lactantius articulates
this, and it's a constant themeof the early church fathers. Sadly,
when you get a kind of integralismafter Constantine, this principle almost immediately begins
to be disrespected. So I meanthose are two dangers. Now your question
(38:30):
is, well, if you havefreedom of religion, then don't you have
the opposite problem. You then createa kind of society of indifference and decadence.
And I think the answer is thatthe ideal that we need to work
toward is creating cultures that favor thereligious lives of their citizens, but on
(39:00):
terms that respect freedom of conscience andrespect the autonomy and independence the libertas ecclesia.
You know of the church and otherreligious organizations. Just to give one
example, Indonesia, a country thatI know well and you mentioned I work
with the Muslims in Indonesia. Indonesiais a fascinating country because it's simultaneously not
(39:24):
a secular state, nor is itan Islamic republic. It is a it
is a it has you could say, a pluralistic religious establishment, whereby the
government expressly favors and encourages without controlling, the religious lives of all of the
(39:44):
major religious communities in Indonesia. Sosix religions are officially recognized, that they're
all given support and encouragement by agovernment that's not secular, but it's also
not Islamic. So you and asense have a multi confessional, pluralistic,
non secular state, and it seemsto me that we should be working with
(40:09):
our religious, uh you know,fellow citizens who may not share our faith,
but who are religious and I don'twant to, you know, live
in a society that has a nakedpublic square, but also don't want to
live in a society that that forceson them religion that's not their own.
We should be working towards creating agovernment and a culture that really favors positively
(40:35):
the religious lives of of of allour citizens. Easier said than done,
of course, but but I thinkthere is a way to navigate the you
know, and avoid the extremes ofa kind of secular differentism and and integraalism,
both of which are deadly and dangerous. And liberalism as such, you
(41:00):
know, is absolutely not not,not an appropriate full understanding of the human
person or politics and inner Balista areright to point out the fatal flaws of
liberalism of various sorts. Thank you, Yeah, Valerie. We have a
(41:29):
frieze here from we have a freeze, hopefully not a deep freeze. She's
looking really looking very happy though she'sread she froze at a happy moment all
we're while we're waiting here. Uh. I don't think many Americans are even
(41:52):
aware of this Indonesian model. Idon't think that, yeah, exceptional is
on the screen even No, it'snot. We we haven't impoverished. Uh.
I think sense of of the options. You know, there there are
(42:12):
other other other forms of managing therelationship between religious state that avoid secularism and
integralism. It seems to me thatfor most Americans, the single memorable event
(42:36):
in Indonesia, this is probably forAmericans more of Mario's generation, all your
seniors, uh, is the theabsolute suppression of communism in Indonesia. Yes,
it was as violent as we canimagine. Yes, yes, Indonesians
(43:05):
you know still speak about that periodas a very very dark period. I
will say in defense of you know, those who were involved in the suppression
that and by the way, Catholicsand Muslims worked side by side to suppress
communism in nineteen sixty five, workingwith the CIA as well. Catholics were
(43:32):
very much involved. One has toremember that Indonesia had the third largest communist
party in the world. Indonesian communistsinitiated a terribly vicious and bloody coup in
which top Indonesian generals were murdered,and there was a sense that this was
(43:58):
a terrible, terrible threat. IfIndonesia had become communists in that period,
it is it's unfathomable what might havehappened, not only to Indonesia, but
the entirety of Southeast Asia and perhapsAsia as a whole. You would have
had something like Paul Pott's Cambodia ona massive scale. And so those were
(44:24):
the stakes. That doesn't justify thekilling of, you know, innocent people
and the kind of the killings ona mass scale which occurred. And yet
the choices that people at the timehad to make were very, very,
very very difficult ones. Indeed,so often the more one knows about international
(44:52):
events or even events in one's owncountry, the more complicated and tangled they
turns out. Yes, yeah,right, yes, yet another reason why
we have to hear from many peoplein an atmosphere that allows them to be
really heard. Valerie, we've beenadding more thoughts to Indonesia. Please take
(45:19):
us forward. Well, not surewhat you covered. I was thinking when
you were talking before my computer justrandomly shut down about mother Teresa's quote about
helping Muslims become better Muslims, Hindusbecome better Hindus. And it sounds to
me like this is the kind ofgovernment and culture that you are kind of
proposing. And I don't know ifyou, I don't know if you identified.
(45:44):
You know, you've clearly take ayou know, your life has led
you to take an interest in thisissue of religious freedom and how it plays
out not just governmentally but also culturally. So I'm curious how you've kind of
come along that path and why you'redoing what you're doing in life. And
then also if you have anything elseto say about, you know, the
(46:07):
key challenges in our moment to religiousfreedom, not only in India but throughout
the world. Sure well. Iwas raised in a remarkably inter religious household.
My mother is a Welsh German background, a person growing up in Wisconsin
(46:29):
who met my father, who wasfrom Bombay Jane background, and they were
married in nineteen sixty seven at atime when there were not a lot of
interracial marriages in Milwaukee. And theyraised us and my brother and me in
a household where I remember very clearlymany evenings we had we had family prayers
(46:53):
and my mother would lead us inthe Lord's prayer, and my father would
lead us in a jane chant inhis native language of Gujarati. So I
never really thought that this was odd. It seemed very natural. I later
became a committed evangelical Christian. Andthen, you know, not that long
(47:16):
ago, seven years ago or soeight years ago now, my wife and
I became Catholics. We've spent lotsof time in India. My wife is
from India. So religious pluralism isnot something that is a distant reality.
It's something that you live. Youknow, we have Muslim neighbors, and
(47:37):
there's a mosque very close to ourhouse, so on Friday we can hear
the Imam preach and we hear thecult to prayer. And there's a Catholic
church close enough that usually around sevenin the evening, especially during Lent,
we can hear the Catholic church hasan a loudspeaker uh, an instrumental version
(48:00):
of of of Ave Maria. Andwe've got Hindu temples all over the place.
So uh, you know, akind of vibrant u in your face.
Religious pluralism is just very a verynatural part of one's environment, and
it and it sort of makes youreflect on, well, you know,
(48:21):
how, how how can this workin a way that maximizes the flourishing of
ordinary people? And I think whatMother Trees they had to say was was
right. Of course. You know, we we Catholics have uh, you
know, a duty to to uhdo what Christ commanded and the great commission
(48:43):
to go make disciples of all nations, baptizing them the name of the Father
and the Son in the Holy Spirit. That's that's an that's it is an
you know, uh, non negotiableaspect of our faith. And it's something
that we you know, we wewe joy tell those you know, non
Christian friends of ours who might wonderabout our exclusivism, but we then have
(49:07):
to explain that, you know,we believe, in a sense, we
exclusively believe in a God who wasmaximally inclusive. I mean, he,
the God we believe in, stretchedout his arms wide on the cross to
include everyone in his embrace. Andwe have a God who is in himself
(49:30):
a community of persons. So thereis so precisely our theological exclusivism creates a
radical inclusivity, you know, preciselythe dogmas of our faith that that people
might think are the most dogmatic andproblematic. Actually are what make it possible
(49:57):
for us to engage robustly in loveingdialogue and and and witness in a way
that's respectful but also doesn't doesn't givegive up an inch in terms of the
distinctiveness of our of our orthodoxy.And you know, I've wanted to sort
of develop these ideas, and youknow, we're in the process of developing
(50:17):
these ideas in order to uh,you know, create a deeper dialogue with
with Hindu leaders and interlocutors who arevery, very open. I've developed friendships
with very senior Hindu leaders, bothon the political and religious side. I've
developed a wonderful friendship with a verysenior Hindu swami who is a celibate monk
(50:42):
in a in a remarkable movement.I've developed friendships with the Hindu Nationalists.
Memory leaders of the Hindu nationalist movement. Many of them don't really have any
background of understanding of Western Christianity.They really really don't have any knowledge of
what Catholics Christians actually believe. Thevery superficial understanding, but so you know
(51:08):
it it In some ways, itcan be easy to overcome certain misconceptions the
moment they hear just a basic presentationof what Christians believe. They many misconceptions
are removed, but we have muchdeeper work to do as well. Certainly,
(51:28):
I think doctrines like the Trinity andthe Incarnation, though they might seem
the very things that make dialogue difficultagain, actually can be precisely a basis
for us to to to engage.Hindus are big on pluralism when they hear
that our very understanding of God isin a sense, I mean diversity,
(51:51):
is a kind of diversity baked intothe nature of God himself. And this
is a you know again a basisfor us to come to uh, you
know, respectful mutual understanding. Sothanks be to God, we're working with
Father Thomas Joseph White, Director Magnificusof the Angelica, to have a Hindu
(52:14):
Catholic dialogue at the Angelica next yearinvolving very senior Catholic theologians and leaders and
then senior Hindu leaders where hopefully wecan go deeper into into these kinds of
issues. Now, if if you'reopen to working with Hillbilly Thomassim, that
(52:39):
fits in well with your carrying onall your activities at the University of Dallas.
How did that come about? It's, oh, Jim, five minutes
after it's already five minutes after ten. Ah. This happens to us all
the time, just as no fair. Oh, given our given our lack
(53:04):
of external funding, we have toend on a timely fashion. And that's
absolutely fine. And we all thetime flew by, at least on my
side, certainly certainly on our side. Uh. We always end with the
(53:25):
Gospel of the day is the Feastof all saints. Yes, so we
have from Matthew. When Jesus sawthe crowds, he went up the mountain,
and after he had sat down,his disciples came to him. He
began to teach them, saying,Blessed are the poor in spirit, for
(53:45):
theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.Blessed are they who mourn, or they
will be comforted. Blessed are themeek, or they will inherit the land.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirstfor righteousness us, for they will
be satisfied. Blessed are the merciful, for they will be showing mercy.
(54:06):
Blessed are the clean of heart,for they will see God Blessed are the
peacemakers, for they will be calledchildren of God. Blessed are they who
are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, For theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
Blessed are you when they insult youand persecute you and utter every kind
(54:28):
of evil against you falsely because ofme, Rejoice and be glad, for
your reward will be great in heaven. Lord Jesus, con Amen, thank
you, Thank you, Mum somuch of the thank you, Thank you
(54:49):
well. What a joy was tobe with you, Mario and Valerie,
to meet you and Jim as alwayslove being with you. God, spe
take care and I'll go buy alottery ticket in the hopes of bringing my
family to India and saying, okay, you please, all you have to
do is get here. We'll takecare of the rest. Thank you,
(55:12):
Thank you, I'll bless you.Thank you so much. Hello, God's
beloved. I'm Annabel Moseley, author, professor of theology, and host of
then Sings My Soul and Destination Sainthoodon WCAT Radio. I invite you to
listen in and find inspiration along thissacred journey we're traveling together to make our
(55:34):
lives a masterpiece and with God's grace, become saints. Join me Annabel Moseley
for then sings My Soul and DestinationSainthood on WCAT Radio. God bless you.
Remember you are never alone. Godis always with you. Thank you
(55:59):
for listening to it. Production ofWCAT Radio. Please join us in our
mission of evangelization and don't forget.Love lifts up where knowledge takes flight
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.