Call it by its correct name: Lying

A.D., a former Jesuit friend, wrote:

What bothers me, maybe more than anything else, is that Paula White-Cain is not lying. She's very evidently sincere and deeply believes what she's saying. She very evidently also thinks she knows what she's saying is true.

She also believes what she's saying—and what she is declaring to Trump—is true, so her declarations don't violate my ethical values or the obligations placed on me by my conscience with regard to truth-telling.

But her believing does violate my epistemological values, what my conscience requires me to think I know to be true, and what my conscience requires me not to think I know to be untrue.    

She thinks she knows certain facts about the mind of God—and about the will of God in particular---and, evidently, she feels obliged to pass this information onto Trump and others. I, on the other hand, don’t think I know to be facts any of the things Paula thinks she knows to be facts about the mind of God.

          My theological epistemology and Paula's theological epistemology—or, in other words, the theological method by means of which I believe one can acquire knowledge about the mind of God, and the theological method which Paula thinks gives her knowledge about the mind of God—are radically different, one from the other.

    Paula White-Cain is supposed to be the "spiritual advisor" of Trump, and I have no doubt that she does her level best to do that job. The problem for me is that I don't think her spiritual advice, though sincerely proffered, is wise. This is part of the reason the world needs not just "spiritual direction" but wise spiritual direction.

    I think this is true, but whether or not it is, it leaves the question wide open: Who gets to decide when spiritual direction is wise and when it is unwise?

        Smart people only?  But smart people disagree, fervently, about what's wise and what's unwise.  And smart people can be pretty unwise sometimes.

    So then, who gets to decide what's wise and what's not wise?

__________________

Dear A.D.*, I am very sympathetic to your robust, serious analysis of the epistemology supporting the utterances of Trump’s spiritual advisor, Paula White-Cain. I need to be reminded when I dismiss, for example, the faith narrative of the Latter Day Saints as bunk, or the beliefs of the Branch Davidians as an evil cult. I agree that Ms. White-Cain’s sincere emotional tone opens the question “Who gets to decide when spiritual direction is wise, and when it is unwise?” It even calls into question, frankly, my off-the-cuff Buddhist analysis that Ms. White-Cain is just deluded. Who am I to say that intoning “Ata ratta ambu rata” doesn’t conjure up powerful prosperity deities to vanquish what Spiro Agnew, himself a beacon of ethical conduct, labeled “nattering nabobs of negativism"? 

I am so taken by your analysis that I would like to broaden the target. When we examine the mechanism of assent, we should also consider what she is assenting to. What White-Cain says about Trump is so outrageous that it borders on what might be insanity, though most mainline Christians would just call it blasphemy. 

The Reverend White-Cain is no outlier. She belongs to a branch of the American Evangelical Pentecostal Church known as the Prosperity Gospel. I was fascinated with these brothers and sisters when I was on Holy Hill. I read widely. Napoleon Hill wrote “Think and Grow Rich,” a central text of the movement, in 1937. The New Agers practice a form of mantra called affirmations; for example, “I deserve abundance” opens the generosity of the universe and makes us rich. A black prosperity preacher with the wonderful name Creflo Dollar (his real name is Creflo Augustus Dollar Jr.) preached a sermon, "If I want to believe God for a $65 million plane, you cannot stop me," after his Gulf Stream Jet was involved in a runway collision. The bulk of his fortune apparently came from insisting that followers pay a 10% tithe early in his career. He was subsequently investigated by a Senate Committee chaired by Chuck Grassley (who must have softened his qualms under the influence of the current administration). 

The prosperity preachers’ roster includes the former star of “The Love Boat,” Gavin MacLeod, to give it a Hollywood slant, but other names have become familiar due to the mega-church TV phenomenon: Oral Roberts, Reverend Ike, Jim Bakker, Robert Tilton, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, and Joel Osteen.

Some point to the role of Trump’s first pastor, Norman Vincent Peale, as central to his theology. Trump’s parents were members of Peale’s “Positive Thinking” Marble Collegiate Church. If I were to look at the glamorous rhinestone and sequined liturgical garb of White-Cain, I’d conjure up the wildly popular Aimee Elizabeth Semple McPherson of the famous Foursquare Church in Los Angeles in the early part of the last century.*

Rev. White-McCain traces her spiritual lineage to the predominantly black Pentecostal Church. Her mentor was Bishop T.D. Jakes, of Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies. He was converted to Oneness Pentecostalism, which affirms the Divinity of Jesus. White-McCain also acknowledges Nicholas Duncan-Williams, Archbishop and General Overseer of the Action Chapel International (ACI) Ministry, as a spiritual guide. Headquartered in Accra, Ghana. Duncan-Williams is a proponent of spiritual warfare prayer. (Real Exorcism stuff, demons, devils, fallen angels, and what we recognize as Santa Maria). The lack of African-American and African representation on stage at the White House is not surprising given the transactional nature of White-McCain’s theology. When racists seize control, just blend in. 

I’ve studied the sayings of Jesus carefully, and it is totally offensive to tie our immoral president to the gospel narrative of the Lord’s passion, death and resurrection. Supporters of the materialistic prosperity gospel have completely abandoned common sense and whatever critical thinking skills have not been devoured by their greed. That might be the price of an actual office in the West Wing, with a budget and staff, but I have to admit that this is an opinion, a strong one that I try to back up with more facts than hearsay, but still an opinion.

The sanctification of capitalism is very American, and perhaps inevitable. The Jesuits Antonio Spadaro and Marcelo Figueroa examined the origins of the prosperity gospel in the United States and described it as a reductive version of the American Dream and the Protestant work ethic (La Civiltà Cattolica). I would further argue that it is not an impossible leap to associate our tax-cutting billionaire POTUS with the Second Coming. A “new thought” Christian, Og Mandino, wrote the influential “Greatest Salesman in the World” in 1968. Though Mandino was not a prosperity preacher and does not directly reference Saint Paul’s evangelization of Jesus's message, many people have used this analogy to sanctify the role of the salesman. My own preference would be Arthur Miller’s “Death of a Salesman,” or Sinclair Lewis’s “Babbitt,” given the thin veneer of our greed and the depth of our unhappiness. 

Nonetheless, here we are wondering how this apparently sincere, composed, sequined lady preacher can stand in front of a national audience and claim Trump was “betrayed," "falsely accused,” and that his political resurgence mirrored the resurrection, saying, “Because [Jesus] rose. . . you rose up." She declared, "No one has paid the price like you have paid the price," . . . that because of divine victory, "you will be victorious in all you put your hands to."

I was shocked and dismayed, and when I went online to search for her exact language, I pulled up a broader picture of other notable divines who graced the stage alongside White-Cain and the new Messiah, I was even more shocked. There he was, one of my favorite Catholic ecclesial right-wingers, Bishop Robert Emmet Patrick Barron! The blasphemy is not confined to a small subset of Pentecostal preachers but has infected the Catholic hierarchy.

Pope Leo has made it known that he is unequivocally against Trump and Netanyahu’s war. As the former head of the dicastery that nominates bishops, Leo knows he can’t revoke Bishop Barron’s consecration unless he were convicted of a heinous crime, such as Cardinal Theodore “Uncle Teddy” McCarrick. 

Is Barron’s sharing the stage with the Rev. White-Cain and our new Messiah President blasphemy? He took the microphone and intoned a few words; he didn’t go so far as to second Trump’s messianic nomination or ask to stick his hands in the stigmata, nor did he add his own “Ata ratta ambu rata,” but he remained silent during White-Cain’s remarks, called the afternoon "a great joy, great privilege," and lauded Trump for gathering faith leaders to celebrate Holy Week. 

Where was the fire-and-brimstone condemnation of his “Word of Fire” podcast? Bishop Barron didn’t object. It was the perfect opportunity for him to simply leave the stage or say, “I’m sorry, Paula, but this is not the Good News that I have pledged my life to proclaim.” But he just stood there, the picture of abject cowardice, and kept his mouth shut. I checked Canon Law to see if he could be censured for heresy or blasphemy. Canon 1369 (or Canon 1386 in some interpretations) allows for the punishment of individuals who, in public speech or media, utter blasphemy, gravely injure public morals, or express contempt for religion. Barron might have avoided penalty by keeping his mouth shut, but in my view, his presence and silence sent a strong message. 

__________________

"In America, you call it the alt-right, in Germany, we call it 'why Grandpapa lives in Argentina now'" —Angela Merkel

A.D., there is only one thing that I would challenge with regard to your analysis of White-Cain’s position. You say she is not lying; you presume that a person couldn’t muster her level of sincerity, passion, or conviction if he or she were making a false statement, a series of misstatements, or conscious fabrications. I would argue that she doesn’t recognize that she is lying and that her belief system is predicated on a seemingly coherent set of lies and unchallenged assumptions. That’s pure cult behavior.

Is this an impossible position? Of course not. If it were not possible, or if forgiveness were not within our reach, we could never forgive the millions of Germans who supported the Third Reich and turned a blind eye to the antisemitism that was one of the tenets of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”  Can masses of people believe a lie? The Nazis used subterfuge. Germans who supported Hitler might say, “We thought we were voting for something else,” or “We were swept up in a mass movement,” supported by censorship and propaganda. The existence of the death camps was hidden. To a large extent, this is true. Trump is fostering this kind of lie right now. He’s following the maxim of his mentor, Roy Cohen: “never apologize, never admit fault,” and continue to lie until it becomes a reality. 

White-Cain provides spiritual cover. She treats Trump’s lies as truth and cloaks them in the language of the Gospel. In the current etiquette of public discussion, we are not allowed to scrutinize belief statements rigorously. You might say politely to the Mormon missionary or Jehovah’s Witness who has rung your doorbell, “I’m sorry, but I am not interested,” or, as I say, “Sorry, but I’m Buddhist.” It would be more honest if I invited them into the sitting room, poured coffee, and began an inquiry into how they know that Joseph Smith actually dug up golden tablets, which were then interpreted by the Angel Moroni. 

But I prefer not to invite that level of intimate conversation. I don’t have time to conduct the investigation I feel is necessary for that level of inquiry, and frankly, I have zero interest. Mormons can do whatever they want in their oddly built temples as long as they don’t bother me. I also don’t want to get into any sectarian or proselytizing argument. That’s way beyond my pay grade, and in a pluralist, diverse, and tolerant society, it is best to avoid conversations that might incite conflict or disagreement about subjects that might spark animosity, ill will, or physical confrontation. In the past, these kinds of incidents have been fought over for hundreds of years. 

A.D. I like the rigor of your self-analysis. You say: “My theological epistemology and Paula's theological epistemology—or, in other words, the theological method by means of which I believe one can acquire knowledge about the mind of God, and the theological method which Paula thinks gives her knowledge about the mind of God—are radically different, one from the other.” I hold my sanity as a precious gift to be cherished and guarded: the ability to follow an argument, to pay attention to what other people are saying, to honor them, to check that I am listening carefully. It’s hard work. I have to monitor myself; one of the reasons I still schedule meditation into my daily routine after at least 50 years, and I do not claim infallibility.

But when confronted with an absolute lie, unlike our hier to the Apostles, Bishop Barron, you won’t find me muttering a few words that don’t rock the boat. Ms. White-Cain’s business model is a “Buy Your Ticket to Heaven” Ponzi scheme. She claims to receive no salary for spiritual labor on Trump’s behalf, but you can be sure that her rolodex has been stuffed with a whole new crop of potential investors to defraud. I am puzzled by Barron’s motivation. With Cardinal Dolan, it was easier. His connections to Kenneth Gerard Langone are well-known and worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Perhaps Barron is lining himself up to inherit Dolan’s rolodex. Regardless, there has to be a payoff. 

So we might end up with something like Hamlet’s question: “So then, who gets to decide what's wise and what's not wise?” I say we have to trust ourselves and take action. 

__________________

Notes and references:

*I have only used the initials of the former Jesuit A.D. because I do not have his permission to quote him publicly.

*Note: The Prosperity Evangelicals are not the Church of Religious Science (often associated with Ernest Holmes’s Science of Mind), and are distinct from the Church of Scientology and Christian Science, which are other American sects/cults. 

LIE Definition & Meaning

noun · a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth

I have been very much influenced by these two works: ”Lying” by Sam Harris and “Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life” by Sissela Bok

Trump’s Ten Commandments by Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and co-author Steven Tian

Fear, Rage, and The Trump Tapes by Bob Woodward

Women in the Church

Holy Thursday, 2026

On March 10, 2026, the Vatican's General Secretariat of the Synod published the final report of Study Group No. 5, titled "Women's Participation in the Life and Leadership of the Church". I have become a fan of “Jesuitical,” a podcast by America Magazine, which is run by mostly younger, articulate Catholics, with a very equal gender representation. Here is the link to three of the women struggling with their response to a very disappointing document. https://youtu.be/X-SxGiEQDjs?si=JmuvADu--xxkjfFn. I follow with my own comment. 

I say unapologetically that sex was the reason I left the Jesuits and the Church. Of course, most of the impetus for my decision was the fact that I am gay and refused to take the position of “intrinsically disordered.” But my reasons also included the systematic exclusion of women from real decision-making. After Francis's huge push for synodality, the patriarchy now wants to say that there are roles for women; this is where their power and their status lie; stay tuned.

Let’s examine the flip side of this argument: if a man has talent as an administrator, or churchman, or academic, or an artist, or a poet, this can become a source of their sense of intrinsic worth. If they are good at it, they can make valid, binding decisions with regard to workflow, scholarship, the performance of cultic functions, the value of art, and poetry. Although this is sometimes true, what is more normal, certainly within the confines of the church, is that men, whether a bishop, priest, professor, painter, or wordsmith, make binding decisions not because they merit their status (though some may); it’s because only men are members of the exclusive coterie at the top. Women are excluded.  

You can’t have it both ways. The fact that two millennia ago, men ruled and women were relegated to menial positions simply reflects their social status. It is not the universal unalterable order of the universe. Perhaps it is time for the patriarchal church to wither away.

I have written about my personal experience. “Sister Jacinta, the Reality of Women Priests.”

https://jesuskoan.blogspot.com/2022/12/the-reality-of-women-priests.html

Trapped by Life

“You can get as angry as you like, but you can’t do anything about what you can’t do anything about.” —Haruki Murakami

Of course, we get trapped by life. That is our situation. What do I mean by “trapped by life”? It's actually quite simple: there are circumstances or conditions we cannot change, no matter what we do or how we feel about them, and, despite how we craft our most authentic response, it still seems inadequate. The world is not perfect despite our best intentions. Besides prayer, what’s our next authentic move? 

I protest that I no longer call myself Roman Catholic; I say that I’ve cast my vote with my feet and walked out the door. Yet I still follow the inner political and theological turmoil and clerical machinations in hopes that it might reflect a force that can help tilt the course of events towards a more equitable, fair, and just course in human affairs. So I could still call myself Catholic. Many in my situation do. Opinions are just opinions. I honor the Teaching of Jesus as a true gift from God, although I don’t fully subscribe to the official ecclesiastic version. I do not fully participate in the life of the church because of how I have chosen to live; I do not feel it’s appropriate for me to participate in rituals or conversations where I would have to fudge the accepted or prescribed guidelines. That would be disingenuous and arrogant.

This outsider position has, over time, changed me and my perception. Where we stand matters. The Jesuit Pope Francis chose to live in a rooming house for bishops and priests. That sparked a revolt among some of the righteous, who also believed that his positions, teachings, and guidance were heretical and should be contested, ignored, or invalidated. Leo is following this M.O. by shifting from Francis’s modest rooms back to the fabulous, regal Papal apartments. Francis's critics hail this as a repudiation of his revolutionary papacy.   Cardinal Dolan has been removed—the left asserts “evicted”—from his high and mighty address on Fifth Avenue, but if I think that an address gives me permission to dismiss the filth that he spewed about Donald Trump and Charlie Kirk, I’m just deluded. The doormen of Fifth Avenue buildings have an equal voice about the course of human events, if not more than old Fattso with the red hat. They know who’s fucking who but keep their mouths shut.  

Let me confess some of my sins: I watch YouTube for an inordinate amount of time. I’ve watched Leo survey his new digs, take a day at Castel Gandolfo, or convene the Vatican Cardinals. They all wear nearly identical antiquated costumes, and, with the exception of one rather elegant woman religious, the titular head of Vatican City, are all men, ranging from older to ancient, mostly of European descent. They run the show, set the rules, and spend the money. From my perspective, it doesn’t matter how squeaky clean any Francis or Leo makes this kind of government; I would have to believe in the oracle of Delphi to trust this exclusive male coterie to offer real guidance in our topsy-turvy world. I do not. They’ve squandered whatever spiritual inheritance that was handed down through two millennia. 

Once upon a time, I believed what these men said, but then I felt that grew up and realized, “Self, you were not born yesterday. Open your eyes. This is not the world as it is, or even pretends to be. These men certainly do not represent you.” Here is a very important distinction: it’s not just individual men. These particular men have an outsized influence on the moral behavior of billions. Only men have the final say. That’s just patriarchy, nothing holy or infallible. 

But I find myself in a quandary. I am still looking for leadership and guidance about the appropriate action that I can take to help make things a bit better. I know that love is expressed in action, not words. Do I look towards “La Raza” or L’Arche? Both organizations seem to be founded on solid principles and deserve support. Without question, I say, “Yes!” But then I discover, as the world discovers, that Cesar Chavez used his power and position to lock the door of his private office to have sex with very young girls, and that Jean Vanier engaged in “. . . relationships involv[ing] various kinds of sexual behaviour often combined with so-called ‘mystical and spiritual’ justifications for this conduct.… the alleged victims felt deprived of their free will, and so the sexual activity was coerced or took place under coercive conditions ….” (from the final report of the Inquiry). Have I been betrayed? That’s how it feels.

The sex abuse by clergy was, and continues to be, horrific. I have a lot of conflicting thoughts about the predicament. Can I legitimately withdraw my support for these very human leaders who are not saints while still supporting the organization's aims? Certainly, their conduct has harmed the effectiveness and success of the organizations. Do I keep my mouth shut? Or do I interpret the words attributed to Jesus in John 8 when the Pharisees bring a woman caught in adultery, "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone," to mean that I should not condemn either Chavez or Vanier?

I can both support the projects and condemn the leaders, and do so in a way that holds up. I recall talking to Avery Dulles several times about the abuse scandals after he was named a cardinal. He found the whole situation to be incredibly embarrassing; those were his words. He just couldn't, on some level, believe that priests or religious were behaving so badly. He also attended the American Catholic Bishops’ meetings, and it was understood that he carried John Paul 2's message to the bishops. He was not a bishop, but was listened to. The Pope trusted Avery, and he talked with men on the Pope’s staff before the meetings. (I was a bit shocked, but that is what he told me). He himself was also both ideologically and politically conservative enough to gain a hearing with that group.  

I just went back to some of my notes about the conversations we had regarding the situation. This is from something I wrote back in 2001 or so. “He said that his first response was profound embarrassment—men with whom we shared the ideals of Ignatius took advantage of their position as priests to prey on teenage boys and young adults. But then he hesitated. He said that the word embarrassed is not exactly right—he said ‘profoundly disappointed’ might be closer. He was embarrassed for the institutional church he loved and supported and, like me, was personally disappointed in the men with whom he thought he shared an altruistic spirit. In retrospect, I think that ‘disappointed’ is still a euphemism. I think he felt betrayed.” 

Avery, however, did not bury or hide from what he called a “disappointment.” I know he worked quietly with the superiors of the old New York Province as they talked with Father John McNeil before he was dismissed. Although McNeil was never accused of sexual misconduct, he was openly gay just after Stonewall, and the official position was that he was “intrinsically disordered.” Avery was insistent that every priest accused of sexual abuse get a fair hearing and be given a chance to defend himself. He and I talked about this at length. He was well aware that it was the kind of emotional situation in which people make snap judgments and act impulsively. 

Here is a link to another piece I wrote about the sex abuse scandals and the Jesuits, “Don't Ask, Don't Tell—A Jesuit Strategy” (https://jesuskoan.blogspot.com/2019/10/dont-ask-dont-tell.html).

However, I’ve said nothing that addresses Jesus’s admonition, “let the person without sin cast the first stone.” Is it possible to feel and express revulsion about sexual exploitation, standing in the shadow of my own sexual behavior? Of course. I remember Michelangelo Signorile at Saint Peter’s Lutheran Church in 1988, shouting at Cardinal Ratzinger when he outlined the Catholic response to HIV/AIDS, “He is no man of God. He is the devil!” Signorile said it was a spontaneous act, perhaps a reaction, “thinking about the homophobia he'd experienced as a child and the Catholic Church's decrees.” There are many sayings of Jesus where he calls out hypocrisy. As a matter of fact, that is the clear subtext of the “Cast the first stone” story: he is addressing the Pharisees, a favorite target of his anti-establishment sentiment. This was also the beginning of Signorile’s controversial “outing”: publicly identifying and shaming prominent closeted gay men and women who actively suppress gay rights. He kicked off right at the top by calling out a Pope who loved his red pumps. 

I defend myself by pointing out my attitude towards the misconduct of so many Zen teachers during the birth pangs of Buddhism in the West. The situation is not that much different than that of Chavez or Vanier if I were just weighing the consequences of calling out sexual abuse. Many people have made the argument that several highly publicized sex scandals have damaged the growth of Buddhism in the West by discouraging people of goodwill from practicing. Zen, however, was made for sinners, not saints—though the same could be said of most churches that cater to humans and not angels.

The Church has a dark record of dealing with known sinners, heretics, or enemies. But when we get to admirable men and women with skeletons in the closet, the record is mixed. Among possible solutions are denial, creating stories, or dividing our lives into distinct zones that barely touch and certainly don’t acknowledge the presence of the dark side except by disdain, avoidance, or condemnation—the gnostic world of Light and Darkness. How will the Church today, and I think more importantly, huge numbers of believers reconcile themselves to the sins of their fathers?  

The case of Saint Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer y Albás intrigues me. He founded Opus Dei, which has recently come under investigation for sexual exploitation and abuse as well as financial crimes. (investigative journalist Gareth Gore, Opus: The Cult of Dark Money, Human Trafficking and Right-Wing Conspiracy inside the Catholic Church). He was canonized on October 6, 2002. Both John Paul 2 and Benedict promoted his cause. He was their kind of saint, producing a steady stream of right-thinking conservative clergy ready to undertake the rigors of celibate life. How could he have been unaware of the inner workings of his tightly controlled institute? I cannot say with absolute certainty that he directed every detail of the lives of members of the large worldwide organization, but I bet he knew and approved of most of them. Pope Leo recently invited Gareth Gore to a private interview, so he is also now aware of the inner workings of the Opus. What will be the fate of Escrivá? Can his sainthood be revoked? Of course not, though many suspect holy people have been quietly demoted by the PR wing of the church. Can they create some fiction that separates the saint from the excesses of his overzealous followers? That would be my guess.

Of course, perpetrators have to be held accountable and punished. Of course, the hierarchy has to accept responsibility. But the institutional church has not stepped out of its blame and punishment mindset regarding sexuality. Not on any level. This includes same sex relationships as well as extramarital relationships that heterosexual clergy get caught up in. 

There will always be a fall guy. There has to be, especially if the actual abusers seem to escape retribution. There are good bishops who act in the most compassionate way, and there are the old boys like Cardinal Law who wind up as the archpriest of a major Roman church after being removed. None should escape some taint of blame and censorship, but the world is not fair, and we get trapped by life.

"As night descends on a nation intent upon ruin, upon destruction, blind, deaf to protest, crafty, powerful, unintelligent. It is necessary to be alone, to be not part of this, to be in the exile of silence, to be in a manner of speaking a political prisoner. No matter where in the world he may be, no matter what may be his power of protest, or his means of expression, the poet finds himself ultimately where I am. Alone, silent, with the obligation of being very careful not to say what he does not mean, not to let himself be persuaded to say merely what another wants him to say, not to say what his own past work has led others to expect him to say." —Thomas Merton

from Dancing in the Water of Life: Seeking Peace in the Hermitage, The Journals of Thomas Merton: Volume Five 1963-1965. Edited by Robert E. Daggy.

What would Bapuji be Doing?

Sunday, 22 March 2026

Written with Ankit Deshwal

The Coronavirus emergency in India: On the evening of 24 March 2020, the Government of India ordered a nationwide lockdown for 21 days. As of 23 March 2026, according to Indian government figures, India has the second-highest number of confirmed cases in the world (after the United States) with 45,056,126 reported cases of COVID-19 infection and the third-highest number of COVID-19 deaths (after the United States and Brazil) at 533,847 deaths

Originally posted to my blog “Buddha, S.J.” on 23 April 2020. Deep thanks to my friend Ankit Deshwal for inspiring and encouraging me.

Gandhi Jayanti 2022 in India

On Tuesday, 13 April 2021, I fasted. It was 397 days since the first Coronavirus lockdown in India. It was also the first day of Ramadan. I am not Muslim, or even particularly religious, but I’d been asking myself what Bapuji would be doing during this pandemic, and my answer was very clear: he'd be fasting. 

Since the founding of their Republic, Indians have faced many challenges. Being true to the principles that created the largest democracy on the face of the earth, each generation has to reformulate an answer in the language and the circumstances of the present moment to this question: What would Bapuji do? This question is more than lip service to the man whose compassion and courage inspire us. It is more than just a sound bite on the TV news to gain political advantage. When facing the silent enemy of the Coronavirus, a life and death situation, our answer might determine whether we live or die. 

The threat of death and the economic destruction brought on by the virus is very different from the occupation of the British Raj. There is no enemy we can point to, no foreign army, no terrorist, no General Dyer, and also no malicious government conspiracy or incompetence. The victims of this virus are not defined by the language they speak, nor the clothes they wear, the clubs where they hang out, nor the religion they practice. The virus does not obey human laws or ordinary conventions. It is a force of nature.

And the threat is extremely grave. Many people are dying in the second wave. Crops are not harvested. Shops are closed again. Temples, mosques, shrines, churches, and gurudwaras are empty. The hospitals are turning sick people away because all the beds are taken. Doctors and nurses are being overworked, getting sick themselves, and dying because they are caring for huge numbers of patients. But most Indians, some more willing than others, are following the advice of our leaders and health professionals and staying home, reducing the rate of infection.

But this comes at an enormous cost. Nerves are frayed. Families confined at home are seeing both the love that brought them together, as well as the negative traits that they would normally tolerate. And yet, we have to do what we can because our survival depends on it. 

Of course, it is far too early to begin to draw any lessons from this experience. But certain things are clear, and I think we should keep them in mind because we cannot really know how long this situation will last.

First, we are all in this together. The virus does not discriminate between Hindu, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, or secularists. Our only defense is a united front. We will only succeed if we work together. We number about 135 crores and share a relatively small section of the earth’s surface. This is a difficult situation even under the best of circumstances.

Second, we have faced other crises in the past, and we have prevailed. People know how to work together in impossible situations. We've realized that any struggle is hard work, but there is no way to avoid the pain that our human life presents us.

Third, Coronavirus is stealthy. It hides. In war, soldiers wear uniforms so that they know who they are fighting with and who their enemies are. The virus has robbed us of that luxury. It has no memory of past injustices. It does not hold grudges. It does not discriminate. To those who might say that the virus itself is God’s punishment for evil, I would just beg for humility in the face of calamity. Which one of us really knows the mind of God? It is perfectly understandable to try to blame someone else when facing an overwhelming fear. It is an instinctive reaction to lash out, and we think it helps. But the virus does not share our prejudices.

And fourth, there will be pain, suffering, and loss. These are the facts of our lives now. There is no way to avoid it. 

When I first learned about Bapuji’s fasting, as a Westerner, I was puzzled. It seems obvious that the way to fight an enemy is to use all the strength and power at our command. I thought he inflicted pain on himself to motivate others, perhaps even through guilt, to come to his way of thinking or unite against the British.

But perhaps it was the only thing he could do. There was no other defense. There was no power that he had to defeat the oppressor other than his inner strength. He nourished his soul by depriving his body. It was also his way of standing up to life's suffering, accepting it willingly. 

I feel helpless in the face of the epidemic. I remain confident that the situation will improve, but I cannot predict when or how. In the meantime, I will do my best and try to overcome my prejudice and work with everyone to defeat our faceless enemy. And I will fast.