opinion: Our Lady of Madhu and the Bishop of Mannar
Background
There has been much controversy over the shifting of the miraculous and highly venerated statue of Our Lady of Madhu to a "safer" location, further deep in Tiger Territory. With it questions have again been raised about the conduct of the Bishop of Mannar Rt.Rev.Dr. Rayappu Joseph.
Since there's heavy fighting in the region and both warring parties are being economical with the truth, no unbiased authentic account of the ground situation is available. It was earlier agreed by both parties that the Madhu church area would be a "No War Zone", but according to the Sri Lankan Army, LTTE carders have infiltrated the precincts. The LTTE strategy aims at provoking retaliatory attacks from the Army and thereby inflicting some collateral damage to the historic shrine, tarnishing the image of the government. The Tigers of course have denied the charges, and claim that the army is attacking the shrine region despite assurances to the contrary.
The Shift
There is no doubt that the shrine area was attacked by either party, and that the the "no war zone" appears to be observed mainly in the breech. The Church authorities have rightly decided that the revered statue should be removed from the area of conflict. The criticism appears to be directed at the church for shifting it further deep in to tiger territory rather than to a government controlled area. The army maintains that had they been informed of such a move it would have facilitated the safe transport of the statue.
The Bishop of Mannar has explained that the decision to shift the statue was taken suddenly after intense shelling forced the priests and staff to vacate the shrine premises temporarily. When they returned after clashes subsided, it was decided to take the shrine to a safer location. It was already dusk and the statue was hurriedly taken to a nearby church further inland.
Unfair Criticism
The Statue and shrine of Our Lady of Madhu has stood for nearly a decade in LTTE territory. The need of the hour was to take the statue to a safer location promptly, whether in government or tiger territory. Obviously there was no time to inform the Army and make arrangements to move it to government territory. Moving the statue to government controlled territory would have either meant travelling via Kilinochchi to Vavuniya or taking her across the Mannar combat lines. Either move would have been impossible. In the first instance the statue would have to pass through the Tiger capitol of Kilinochchi - beyond which the tigers would never allow it to move. Transferring the statue across the battle zone would have been insane since it would defeat the very purpose of relocating by exposing her to even more attacks.
The Bishop of Mannar
As for the frequent allegation of bias of the Mannar Bishop and his Diocesan priests towards the tigers, once again it smacks of total insensitivity to the complexity of the situation.
For one thing the Bishop has continuously stood for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. He has consistently denounced war and violence. At the last Presidential Elections he unsuccessfully appealed to his followers to exercise their franchise, contrary to LTTE orders against it. The late Maj. Gen. Parami Kulatunga was a good personal friend of his - all of this demonstrates his impartiality in the crisis.
It must stressed that a substantial portion of the Mannar Diocese lies in LTTE territory so the Bishop of Mannar is not in a position to take on the Tigers as much as he would like to. It is easy for the JHU to shout hoarse from their safe well secured confines in Colombo, but for an unarmed priest of God to openly challenge the world's most ruthless terrorists in their own territory is an impossible task.
In these difficult circumstances the Bishop of Mannar has acted with prudence, courage and wisdom, in keeping with this spiritual duties. Wrongly portraying him as a tiger sympathizer, would only serve to strengthen the terrorists and discourage the emerging moderate Tamil movement.
The demise of moderatism is the birth of extremism.
- nuradh's blog
- 1335 reads


Comments
Buddhist leaders in Sri Lanka are encouraging their Catholic counterparts to bring a cherished statue of the Virgin Mary back to the famous shrine at Madhu in Mannar.
The image of Our Lady of Madhu, which has drawn pilgrims for over 400 years, was removed by LTTE terrorists after hit by artillery fire them self. Buddhist leaders said that they would join with Catholics in the region to protest the rebel exploitation of the shrine and call for the safe restoration of the statue.
With all due respect to the Madhu Church which is Sacred to all Catholics in this country where the statue of Our Lady of Madhu is enshrined and where annually, vast congregations of Catholics make pilgrimages to pay their respects and pray for protection and guidance, it is sad to read in the newsprint, reports of how the statue of Our Lady of Madhu, the Madhu Church is now being manipulated and insulted by the very same Bishops who are supposed to be protecting it and defending it.
how can a statue posses the power of miracles?
do we believe that it does?
if we do then we are guilty of idol worship?
The statue is miraculous because it has inspired people to have faith in God. There is nothing wrong with being inspired by a statue of the Mother of God. We are inspired by paintings, photos of our loved ones etc. or even movies, so what's wrong with having our faith and spirituality being reawakened by a statue? We are not guilty of idol worship because ultimately we repose our faith in God ....
I am personally appalled that the statue was saved in the first place. It is an unnecessary risk of human lives to save a piece of cement. The statue was undoubtedly moved by workers who unnecessarily risk their own lives (probably a sin itself), and probably of others. It also goes without saying that whoever ordered the statue moved was carrying out a disservice and insult to human life. I don't believe it was intentional of course, and this is a worldwide problem .. of people placing far too much value of symbols.
As catholics, we don't worship idols (refer tenth commandment and other teachings in the Bible). Nobody's life is worth some cement (or whatever it is the statue is made of). God can take care of Himself. Harming the statue won't harm Mary or Jesus. It is a good symbol but, unlike human lives, it can be replaced. The Bishop should have made this point instead .. that lives are more valuable that statues so he didn't move it. Personally I support any moves that would save innocent LIVES ..not statues. If only one tenth of this concern was placed on human lives, that would be real progress. How about a story of human beings being whisked away to safety? I don't care about what happens to sculptured cement, neither does Jesus.
Firstly, if the equation was a piece of cement vs. human life, and the potential loss of either, the one to avoid would certainly be the loss of human life.
However, defining the statue of Our Lady of Madhu as a mere piece of cement defies reason. Pieces of cement (or plaster) are what I find discarded on the road outside my home construction site.
Secondly, perhaps the value of human life is indeed greater, but what explains the fact that you could easily find a fairly large number of people willing to give their lives in order to save the same statue?
In addition, the historic value of the statue (and its sanctuary!) is in itself reason for ‘saving’ it. It is as old as the Catholic faith is in this little country. Historically speaking, the statue is priceless.
Finally, from a ‘Sri Lankan Catholic’ perspective, the Statue of Our Lady of Madhu, her shrine and the Church has been the focal point of Sri Lanka’s Marian devotion for many generations or Sri Lankans, regardless of their ethnicity, social status or geographical location! It IS in fact irreplaceable.
The Bishops decision to safeguard the statue is beyond reproach. As to whether it could have been moved to Government controlled areas or further into LTTE controlled territory is subjective, and no one has enough information to cast judgment upon the Church authorities’ decision. And as for his supposed lack of concern for human life, it would do well to note that where ever the Statue of Our Lady of Madhu goes, with it go hundreds of faithful, with the fervent hope of divine protection.
This controversy over him choosing sides wont be there if he didnt move it.
I think by using a harsh word like appalled I came across stronger than I intended. I agree with your point that it has value as a historical artifact. Though I disagree, I also understand the Bishop's decision to save it. After all in such a situation it's not easy to make those decisions. Maybe he had to weigh whether saving the statue would have saved some lives by not causing an uproar. I don't know. The question of where he should have taken the statue is not a big deal when there are other more important things to worry about like preventing innocent casualties. I wanted the point to be made that we shouldnt forget statues are not as important as lives.
see this is where we go wrong
we put religion, culture, etc above humanity
i agree that the statue is not cement or plaster
it is of great great historical, religious and cultural value
there is no dispute there
people go to venerate statues because if gives them mental peace
its an expression of faith, reverence to god etc.
but the value of human life far surpasses all that
is it worth saving a human life at the expense of the statue?
my answer is yes
All of this is hypothetical, because it is assumed that lives were put on risk by having the statue being moved, when it was not the case.
The statue was moved after fighting ceased. In fact the priests and other caretakers of the shrine did actually place their lives above protecting the statue when they vacated the shrine after there was intense shelling. It was after the shelling and gunfire had ceased that they returned to the shrine to move the statue to a safer abode.
No human life was risked to save "this piece of cement".
I agree with your point that indeed the value of a human life is much more than a statue or something of that sort. However I can still understand why the Bishop would want to move it to safety...as a symbol of faith it provides much comfort and hope to the faithful, and to have it destroyed would be a loss to the catholic community in Sri Lanka.
If the choice was between saving a statue and a human life, yes, a human life must take precedence. But I don't think that was the case here - by moving the statue to safer areas the Bishop did not endanger any lives (I think that was mentioned in the original post, as the other options was to move towards the front lines). I agree with you, the sanctity of the human life is being ripped to shreds day after day in this country, by both the govt. and the LTTE...however I don't see how the actions of the Bishop in this case contributed to or condoned that.
Very informative post...from outside Sri Lanka it is even harder to get an unbiased report of the situation than it is already locally! I find it rich to say the least that the JHU are making a hue and cry about the statue. As usual their aim is to incite the Sinhala populus. The sad thing is that with the suppression of the media that exists in Sri Lanka today, they might well exceed to an extent. This can only end up adding religious tensions into the mix - a horrifying prospect.
Post new comment