Roman Catholics are not easily offended

I cannot count the number of times I have watched each of the three parts of the movie The Godfather. While my favorite is the first, I was never disappointed. Each time my appreciation for the movie just keeps deepening. For different reasons.

First, it was the chilly scenes of premeditated murder. If one wanted the meaning of “cold-blooded murder”, killings in the movies, particularly in the original and the first sequel, provide dictionary meanings. Second, the dark frames, across the original and the subsequent II and III add to the measure of menace implied - unlimited. Third, the musical score matching, indeed driving, the overriding theme. I can go on and on, but I’ll stop as this post is not about the movie.

The proximate reason for my post is that recently the good people at the Z-Classic TV channel have shown all the three movies of this franchise. After watching all the three, ignoring the protests of my family members (no children), I said to myself, “You need to put on record the latest thoughts of yours.” And here I am.

This is about the central plot, as I saw it, of the third offering in the series.  While the ending of the original attests to the Roman Catholic religiosity of the Corleone family (Baptism sacrament), the third takes us to the darker side of the same religion – the real estate mafia of the Vatican, no less. We have an archbishop controlling the Vatican bank and playing to the tunes of the Corleone clan (Michael) - A papal felicitation in return for a donation of a couple of million hundred dollars; making a deal for $600 million (bargaining up from $500 million) with the same cast. There must have been more in the movie but I do not recall.

My point is that though the movie must have been seen by at least a million Roman Catholics (a gross underestimate, I agree) the world over, not one of them seems to have been offended by this unflattering portrayal of the apex institution of his/her religion. Contrast this with what happened to the Martin Scorsese directed movie The Last Temptation of Christ. It created a firestorm of criticism. Though the protests were led by the so-called fundamentalists, Roman Catholics did join in the criticism for “hurting their religious sentiments” (a more sophisticated take on it – goes against what the inerrant Bible says).

What I understand from the above is Roman Catholics are not as attached to Vatican as the Vatican would have us believe. You can say pretty much what you want to say about it and they will take no notice of it. They will not be offended.  Perhaps the fundamentalists, not having such a vast and powerful central controlling body, feel more affiliated to their religion. Roman Catholics do not care for Vatican, or are too aware of the worldly ways of the political entity that claims to represent them to be offended when they are brought out in full public view.

Now, turn the attention to Hinduism or Islam. While Islam does have a central shrine, it is beset by factionalism of the most sever kind. Even the Irish problem never escalated to the severity that we witness in the Islamic world. About Hinduism, there are at best local skirmishes, if any (the Thenkalai v. Vadakalai namam at the Varadaraja Perumal Temple in Kanchipuram, for instance). One of the reasons could be that the religion is devoid of a unitary authority. Could this be the reason that Hindus and Muslims take offence at what they deem the most trivial positions against their religions?

All said, Roman Catholics are more tolerant of their institution because they have one. Coming to think of it, then, it would be better to have such an institution for both Hinduism and Islam in the interest of diluting the offence felt by their adherents.

Raghuram Ekambaram    

  

Marriage tourism

In India we have it easy, indeed too easy. You want to get married or marry someone off, all you have to do is pitch a tent in a public park (of course, there is the small matter of getting an approval from the authorities; a little greasing or pulling strings does the trick). If difficult in Chennai, Delhi always beckons. Race to the bottom!

But, it is not so easy in the United Kingdom [1]. “Five supreme court judges [of UK] have spent a day wrestling with notions of God, nirvana and what constitutes worship.” Why? Not exactly because they had nothing else to do, but pretty close – they had to decide whether a wedding ceremony conducted in the “chapel” in “the Church of Scientology’s building on Queen Victoria Street in the City of London” is legal enough to be registered as a marriage.

If you did not know, the City of London is a posh address. Of course, you do not blame a bride for choosing a fancy locale for her wedding. This is what one Ms. Louisa Hodkin wished for her wedding, both the groom and the bride belonging to the Church of Scientology. Now, it gets tricky.

Apparently the so-called “chapel” does not meet the necessary criteria as per the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855; yes, you read that right – the law is 158 years old! More relevantly, Church of Scientology goes not farther back than early 1950s!

The attorney for the “registrar-general of births, deaths and marriages” who denied registering the “chapel” argued that Scientology “does not involve worship of a divine.” But, this is only the start. “If [the office of] the registrar-general has wrongly registered Buddhists or Jains [not worshipping Gods] then they should be de-registered.” Ouch! I pity the couples who may have gotten married in the places of worship of these religions. In one stroke the attorney had annulled so many marriages – if only Pope Francis had it so easy!

The judges have their task cut out for them. On the other side of the aisle a Liberal Democrat peer argues that the Church of Scientology enjoys an annual tax break of GBP 300,000. He implies that this can be justified only if the Church of Scientology is treated as a religion, and the “chapel” be registered. That is a tough nut to crack. There is more: In Australia, “Scientology has been accepted as a religious denomination.” The judges were not content to let sleeping dogs lie. They “brought in Islam, Unitarianism, Quakerism” to develop comparisons.

How will this all end, none has a clue, not even one of the judges who commented, “Nirvana is a state which an individual attains, the state your lordships [the judges] attain quite often at the end of a case.”

I offer my services to the lordships and also to Ms. Hodkin. Let the couple, along with their family and friends – and do not forget the priest – just fly down to Delhi; a plane-load, it can be. I will arrange for a theme tent in an open area, garishly proclaiming Church of Scientology (we are good at garishness).  

If the above sounds too down market, I have another option. There is a branch (or whatever you may call it) of Church of Scientology somewhere in South Delhi, I think in Hauz Khas (say, upper middle class?). The ceremony can be held there. And, the marriage can be registered in India. The lordships can wait for their next case to attain nirvana.

Either way, India can add marriage tourism to its medical tourism to earn foreign exchange.

India will be the tourist haven!

Raghuram Ekambaram  

References

1.    Scientology case has judges debating the meaning of religion, Owen Bowcott, The Guardian, July 18, 2013.

P.S. We think we in India are over regulated!