The subtle yet significant space between fidelity to local culture and adherence to universal values for Catholicism in Asia. The case of Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka is primarily Buddhist, with over 70% of the population identifying as such. The remaining 30% belongs to religious minorities, three of which are legally recognized by the State: Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam.
Immediately after the civil war ended in 2010, the Peace Council of Sri Lanka established reconciliation committees throughout the country to foster a sense of national unity among people of different religions and prevent interreligious conflicts.
The Sri Lankan Constitution acknowledges that Buddhism occupies «the foremost place» in the country and that it is the State’s duty to protect the teachings of the Buddha. Therefore, the State is also responsible for actively protecting Buddhism in all its forms. Consequently, schools run by Buddhist communities receive state funding, while schools belonging to the other three legally recognized religions must rely on private sources of funding.
Nevertheless, Christians, Hindus, and Muslims can freely organize religious, social, and cultural activities, and every Sri Lankan citizen is constitutionally protected from discrimination or disadvantage based on religious belief or ethnic origin. Furthermore, religious studies on the four legally recognized religions are mandatory in primary and secondary public schools, with classes taught by confessional teachers.
Recently, a law was introduced that requires new religious groups to register in order to undertake activities in the country. After the law was issued, some conflicts arose at the local level when officials tried to implement it retroactively. Following a request for clarification by the four main religions and human rights organizations, it was explained that the law cannot be implemented retroactively, resolving the matter.
At the end of January and beginning of February, the Agriculture Minister, K.D. Lal Kantha, made remarks against the head of the Mihintale Rajamaha Temple, Buddhist monk W. Dhammarathana. This sparked strong dissatisfaction within the Buddhist and Catholic communities. After the monk criticized the government’s policies regarding the educational system’s reform (specifically, the introduction of sex education and the decriminalization of homosexuality), the Agriculture Minister allegedly responded with derogatory language, insulting the monk’s religious status.
During a prayer service for Sri Lanka’s 78th Independence Day on February 4, the Catholic Archbishop of Colombo, Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith, criticized not only the Agriculture Minister’s unfortunate choice of words but also the government’s general attitude toward religion and religious commitment in social affairs: «There is a growing tendency among those in power», said the cardinal, «to deny religious leaders the right to speak and act on problems facing the nation.» The Buddhist community shared the same sentiments and is calling for government action against the Agriculture Minister.
Cardinal Ranjith added that the disrespect of public officials and politicians toward religious leaders and their communities represents «a serious challenge to the existence of religion, which is recognized and protected by the Constitution.»
Human rights activists and agencies are more cautious and nuanced on this matter, noting that certain Buddhist monks and temples have clear political agendas and spread dangerous nationalist ideologies in the country. They call on religious leaders to be careful when dealing with issues of general political interest.
Relevant to the relationship between the Catholic religion and politics in Sri Lanka is Cardinal Ranjith’s remark in his speech: «European countries have severely deteriorated because they tried to build a civilization without religion by degrading it. It would be foolish to follow such a destructive path in Sri Lanka.» This view aligns closely with Pope Benedict XVI’s stance, but it is also dangerously close to the theological interpretation asserted by Moscow Patriarch Kirill in support of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s neo-imperialist endeavors.
In this sense, the small incident in Sri Lanka could reveal a broader problem concerning Catholicism in Asia. Allying with conservative and nationalist Buddhist monks on matters of public morality and individual rights for the sake of traditional/local values could suggest that some Catholics are sympathetic to religious politics, where the State is called upon to legally implement religious teachings. While Cardinal Ranjith’s claim that religion plays a different role in Asia, particularly Sri Lanka, and has its own central meaning in East Asian societies is legitimate and culturally plausible, his reasoning to validate it is, on the contrary, typically Eurocentric. This is a paradoxical request, as it asks the Sri Lankan government to avoid Westernizing its politics using a conceptuality forged in and imbued with European history.
The real challenge for Asian Catholicism is to find its own way of being faithful to local values and histories, the ancestral presence of religion in social and personal life, and to find a regional balance between thousand-year-old traditions and modernization — without adopting the spirit and logic of Western conservative Catholicism. It will be crucial to avoid identifying culturally specific values with the so-called «traditional values» that have found their ultimate defender in the United States under Donald Trump.
