Father Tissa Balasuriya: a case of self-excommunication.

On June 5, 1994, the Bishops' Conference of Sri Lanka--after meeting in vain with Fr. Tissa Balasuriya, O.M.I., then 70 years of age, on two previous occasions--declared that his publication Mary and Human Liberation contained statements incompatible with the Catholic faith. This ruling marked the end of a 25-year-long tension-filled relationship between the author and the bishops of his country.

In July 1994 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) took over. Its communications with Fr. Balasuriya were no happier. After extensive correspondence, on December 7, 1996, he was called to the nunciature in Sri Lanka where he was given another opportunity to express his adherence to the Catholic faith by signing a profession of faith, the text of which had been given him in November 1995. He refused to do so, without adding conditional clauses. On January 2, 1997, the CDF issued a Notification that he had excommunicated himself.

The recently excommunicated Sri Lankan Oblate of Mary Immaculate, Fr. Tissa Balasuriya, wrote in his book Mary and Human Liberation:

"The traditional understanding of redemption in which Jesus Christ is considered the unique, universal and necessary redeemer in an ontological sense that transforms human nature is one which is not presentable in our multi-religious context."

On January 2, 1997, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared that:

"Fr Balasuriya has deviated from the integrity of the truth of the Catholic faith and, therefore, cannot be considered a Catholic theologian; moreover, he has incurred excommunication latae sententiae (can. 1364)."

This declaration caused an uproar in the pages of certain anti-Roman magazines, and in many secular media. In the American National Catholic Reporter, the New York-based Jesuit weekly America, The (London) Tablet, and in Canada in Saskatchewan's The Prairie Messenger, and Toronto's The Catholic New Times attempts were made at showing that Fr. Tissa Balasuriya's treatment had been unfair and excommunication undeserved. However, even if we judge only from the above quote, we see he denies that it is through Jesus Christ and only through Him that we can be redeemed from original sin. The Council of Trent defined that:

"If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam, which is in each one as something that is his own, is taken away either by the forces of human nature or by a remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who has reconciled us to God in his own blood . . . let him be anathema" (Session 5, Canon 3).

Thus the views of Fr. Balasuriya (hereafter B) about redemption (and also about original sin) are directly contrary to Church teaching. He denies that Jesus Christ is the only redeemer. This implies that either (a) there are one or more other redeemers ontologically distinct from Christ, or (b) Christ is not a redeemer, or (c) both a and b. In support of the first possibility, B discusses

"the role of religions and religious foundations in salvation, the identity of Jesus Christ, Gautama the Buddha, the Prophet Mohammed and the seers of other religions."

In support of (b), one may note B's doubts as to whether there is original sin at all, and hence whether redemption is necessary. He also characterizes Jesus as simply "a supreme teacher," "one showing a path to deliverance from sin and union with God," and "one of the greatest spiritual leaders of humanity." This last phrase tells all, including the possibility of there being a greater spiritual leader than Christ.

B's claim that the concept of Christ's redemptive act is "not presentable in our multi-religious context." Therefore he rejects the central doctrine of Christianity (see, e.g., 1 John 4:10). If we are called by Christ to evangelization, then our duty is to present Christianity to all peoples, and what must be presented, must be presentable. If it were not, then the existence of Christianity could not be justified. Of course, for such presentation, it may be necessary to first transform the context in which one finds oneself, to make it open to Christ's message; B, however, seems to prefer assimilating his faith to that of non-Christians.

For B, the doctrine of original sin "is not compatible with the goodness of God." It also "discriminates against females" and "is based on unproved and unprovable assumptions." According to him, a good God would not permit whole generations who did not have access to baptism to have a lesser chance of salvation.

However, in Catholic theology all do have a chance at salvation, since God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). We who are formally members of the Catholic Church have been given much by God, and have more explicit knowledge of God and His plan; but this is more of a responsibility than a personal advantage for salvation. If we know more, we must spread the truth; not to spread it is to keep others in error.

All people have open to them the possibility of a baptism by desire; even if they have not heard of baptism, they can seek to follow the means for salvation that God has set up. Someone who sincerely desires God's salvation implicitly desires baptism, just as someone who is talking about the "Evening Star" is implicitly talking about the planet Venus, whether he knows it or not. And always this salvation is ontologically effected through Jesus Christ's Sacrifice of the Cross, whether the person saved realizes this or not.

B writes: "In our [Asian] countries this idea of humanity being born alienated from the Creator would seem an abominable concept of the divine." Yet people in general are not born in union with God; love for Him needs to be acquired after birth, through His grace and in accordance with free will. This lack of a loving union with God is original sin.

B. either does not understand what original sin is, or he thinks that all people are born in a state of habitual love of God. This latter possibility would itself be a completely "unproved and unprovable" claim; no evidence whatsoever is available for it, whether in Scripture, Tradition, philosophical reasoning, or empirical observation.

How original sin discriminates against females is by no means clear. Presumably this allegation refers to Eve. But in the thought of St. Paul, it is apparently through Adam that original sin has spread (Rom. 5:18-19). It is his sin which was particularly great, because it was specifically to him that God said not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:16). If original sin were to discriminate against one of the sexes (which it does not), it would be against the male. Adam did try to excuse himself by shifting all the blame onto Eve (Gen. 3:12); however, God did not accept his excuse but held both Adam and Eve responsible for the sin (Gen. 3:16-19).

Virgin Mary

Fr. Balasuriya's Mary and Human Liberation is especially judgmental in its outlook on Mary, whose perpetual virginity supposedly makes her a "dehydrated figure who is not quite human." By implication, celibacy causes the dehydration and dehumanization of persons. We can ask: "Why then did Christ recommend celibacy for those who could accept it (Mt. 19:11-12)?"

B--and let us remind the reader that he is an Oblate of Mary Immaculate--is puzzled: "Is it better for Mary to be immaculate or to be normally human?" Strangely, he seems to wish to deny both original sin and the Immaculate Conception, which would imply that all human beings other than Mary are free of original sin but that she is alone subject to it.

Original Sin

Moreover, he seems to think that it is better to be separated from God than to be filled with His sanctifying grace from conception. Furthermore, B. sets up a false contrast. It is precisely because she was immaculately conceived that Mary was fully and normally human; by her immaculate conception, she was more fully in the image and likeness of God, and thus more completely a participant in the human dignity (cf. Gen. 1:26). Instead, it is fallen humanity that is in an abnormal state because of original sin. But of course B. does not believe in original sin.

Virgin Birth

Even the virginal conception of Jesus does not escape B's questioning. "Is it necessarily better to be a virgin mother than an ordinary mother?" he asks.

The issue, however, is not about just any mother, but about the Mother of God, who cannot be an "ordinary mother." And beyond the question of what would be "better" is the question of what is true. Does B. wish to suggest that the conception of Jesus was not virginal? If he does not go that far, then he seems to be suggesting that God could have done better than He did--that is, by making the conception of Jesus not virginal. How great must a man's wisdom be if he thinks he knows better than God what is to be done!

"Class Oppression"

Whether B. is a Marxist or not, his analysis of religious phenomena in terms of societal classes fits into a Marxist framework. While for Marx, it was religion in general that was the "opium of the masses," for B. it is specifically Marian piety, including the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, which serves "the capitalist, patriarchal, colonialist, first world of Christendom" to the detriment of the working classes and of the poor.

An association of Our Lady's Immaculate Conception and Assumption with economic and political oppression is very peculiar. Perhaps B. confuses spiritual purity with the perfumed graceful bodies of the rich, thinking that endowment with spiritual graces are associated with privilege. Or perhaps he thinks that meditation on Our Lady's life keeps the poor from the struggle to improve themselves by making them focus on their own struggles with sin. In fact, the National Catholic Reporter for December 27, 1996 reveals that he considers that "the recitation of the rosary, for example, diverts attention from the need for human liberation." Yet how can meditation on the lives of Jesus and Mary fail to lead to genuine human liberation and compassion for the suffering?

Empowerment

These days, we live in the culture of empowerment, and obsession with questions related to it is central to B's thought. He complains, for instance, that "it is possible, likely and even probable, that the male clergy would foster a theology that would be in keeping with their interests and power in the religious community." Power-centred analysis is particularly visible in the agitation for ordination of women. According to B. "there is no reason why they cannot share in the leadership patterns including the priesthood."

It is, of course, a feminist view that, being "denied" the "right" to ordination, women are derived of power.

Christ's humanity is obviously a full humanity, and qua humanity both men and women participate in it. However, it is evident that Christ was also specifically male, and thus it is appropriate that an icon of Christ be male.

The priest represents a specific Individual--Jesus Christ--and the individuality of this Individual matters. And the very first thing we find in the Bible about human individuality is gender. In Genesis 1:27, we read: "God created man in His own image; male and female He created them." Thus the most basic, most deeply rooted part of human individuation may well be that due to gender. To stand in persona Christi as the priest does, it is certainly appropriate for him to share in Christ's gender. Christ's humanity as a humanity can in some way be said to encompass male and female; but Christ's human individuality certainly cannot.

Sexual Distinctions

B's error is clericalism, the assumption that being a priest is better. A male priest is a better liturgical symbol of Christ than a woman priest would be, but this does not mean that the male priest is actually a better person than a woman. The greatest of all purely human persons was a woman; she was not a priest, and yet she was full of grace (this shows the fullness of grace is not tied to the priesthood).

Our post-modern culture dictates that all sexual differentiation must be nullified. Yet we are created as unrepeatable individuals, each with his own capacities, and we are redeemed as such. Our individuality is not to be obliterated, at least according to Christian (as opposed to, e.g., Buddhist) thought. We know that after the Resurrection, Christ's body still exhibited the marks of the nails. And if there was a continuity, why should sexual distinctions be erased? The only reason I can imagine why someone might want sexual differences to be removed is if he or she thought that the sexual differentiation of human beings is bad. But on the contrary, Genesis 1:31 says that God made man male and female, and that everything which God made was "very good."

All forms of licit religious sacrifice were done exclusively by males, be it by Aaron, the Levites, Samuel, Melchizedek, Abraham, Noah, or, indeed, by Abel (or even Cain). No exceptions. The only women sacrificing in Israel were pagans, such as the wives of Solomon, and the sacrifices were to pagan gods. The Book of Baruch, among the depravities of the Babylonians, asks about the pagan gods: "How can they be called gods? For women bring the offerings to these gods of silver and gold and wood [...]" (Bar. 6:29). The option to have them was part of middle eastern culture and thus open to Israel. And yet, Israel and its Scriptures, in faithfulness to YHWH, rejected the pagan goddesses and the role of priestesses.

Husband-wife love has often been compared to the love between Christ the High Priest and the Church. The 2nd Letter of St. Clement says that "The male is Christ and the female is the Church" (14:2). Moreover, the lamb sacrificed at Passover was always necessarily a male. In Exodus 12:5 we are explicitly told that it could be from the sheep or goats, but it had to be a male. This lamb, of course, prefigured Christ, and if God in the Old Testament chose to have male lambs represent Christ, it is not inappropriate for Him to also choose male humans to represent Christ now as priests. One may even ask whether the fact that the lamb can be either from the sheep or the goats but must be male indicates that race is not relevant, but gender is. Its symbolism is important.

The issue is not power, but rather the nature of man and of woman. Woman's motherhood is infinitely distant from the very idea of offering a victim on the sacrificial altar. To imagine Sarah sacrificing Isaac would be contrary to the dignity of the life-giving vocation of woman, spiritually, psychologically and biologically. Moreover, the priesthood is service, not power. A person who seeks power through it does not have a vocation to it. Furthermore, the priesthood as a service is a form of self-sacrifice. How can it be discrimination if God does not demand this particular form of self-sacrifice from women? Were the female goats and sheep discriminated against when they were not slaughtered at Passover, or was is it rather the male ones that lost out?

Self-excommunication

Fr. Balasuriya's book contradicts Scripture in its teaching on original sin, rejects Tradition by claiming that Catholic theology was "evolved for the furtherance of the interests of the male Euro-American clergy," and denies the authority of the Magisterium which teaches dogmas to which he objects. On any account, his views are heretical, and he has obstinately persisted in them after being warned repeatedly. Therefore, he is a heretic (cf. Canon 751) and is visibly and painfully uncomfortable in and with the Church. And the Church, on her part, is forced to declare the sad fact that he has excommunicated himself.