By Malinda Seneviratne

I am thinking right now of the tragedy that took place last week at Vihara Maha Devi Park when a group of faith healers, blinded by both faith and self-importance, brought about the death of two persons. This naturally irked a lot of people, including sections of the Buddhist community, since these ‘faith healers’ were Christians who use the bait of ‘healing ability’ to attract people of other religious faiths to their gatherings which are also about conversion. One must object, as I have, to the vandalism that was part of the relevant protests, but one must also call to question the ethics and legality of ‘faith healing’ as it is practised in Sri Lanka.

People do have the right to practise their faith and also to try and convert (ideally though superior argument) others. Some argue that there is no such thing as ‘unethical conversion’ since there is no ‘ethical’ issue at stake; that it is about employing whatever legal means at one’s disposal to win over someone to one’s beliefs. Like politicians, they argue.

In contradiction of Jesus’ teachings

Well, there is an ethical dimension to it because religion, more than anything else, is about ethical behaviour and the ethicality of each case has to be assessed in terms of the fundamental tenets of that faith. What we have seen in this ‘religio-political’ of a lot of Christian outfits seems to be quite in contradiction of what Jesus Christ taught through word and deed. That is something that Christians should worry about, not me, although it bothers me that there’s a deathly silence on the part of Christians across denominations regarding the violence, intolerance and utter insensitivity of many of these evangelists.

Moreover, if it is all ‘politics’ and doing whatever is ‘legal’ to achieve ends, then proponents of this argument should also expect those who oppose this kind of activity to employ anything and everything ‘legal’ to stop them, including constitutional amendment. One cannot plead ‘politics’ in one instance and refer to ‘religious freedom’ in another. These are bound together and a discussion of the issue will have to include a consideration of history, economic reality and culture and all the inequalities and subjugations pregnant in these things. In this regard it is perhaps pertinent to remember that even the Vatican (in view of protecting Catholicism) references ‘culture’ as a determinant in the formulation of limits in ‘religious freedom’.

All this is, of course, another debate. What is crucial to me here is the matter of legitimacy in the business of healing the sick. It is said that faith is healer and that faith can work miracles. I am aware that the sum total of human knowledge is abysmally small compared to the universe of our collective ignorance. Thus, it is quite possible for there to be many phenomena that cannot be explained by the scientific knowledge currently in existence. So, if someone prays to some divine entity that person believes exists and is cured of some ailment which physicians have failed to contain, then it is quite understandable if the ‘reason’ is attributed to faith in the divine entity and/or the intervention of the divine even. On the other hand, there is a thing called spurious effect and in the vastness of our ignorance it is perhaps more humble to say ‘I really don’t know’ because there could be, theoretically, a million different reasons for the patient recovering and it is possible that none of them, theoretically, had anything to do with faith.

Mind, a key player in healing process

‘Faith’, like ‘meditation’, eases mind and mind, it is known, can be a key player in a healing process. The faithful can thank the divine entity, and relevant priests can use the case as an advertisement for the particular faith of course. I believe this is harmless. It is something that should not be legislated against. Indeed one cannot really legislate against such choices.

There is a difference, however, between praying to some divine entity and positing as some kind of agent through which the divine entity operates. These particular ‘faith healers’ are Christians. I am not a Christian, so perhaps I am wrong and open to correction, but I have heard Christians speak of ‘God’s Divine Plan’ and that Jesus Christ primarily advocated belief in him as the ‘Son of God’, promising that those who embraced him will benefit. It is the ‘faith’, then, that is beneficial. Individuals can repeat his words and tell those who are willing to listen that believing in Jesus Christ would somehow help them. Jesus Christ did not, as far as I know, say that individuals operating as ministers in his name can work miracles and even if he did, I doubt he gave a blank cheque, so to speak, to each and every self-appointed ‘minister’, conferring miracle-working power. Jesus claimed he was ‘Son of God’. No one else did or can, at least not according to the Christian faith. No one can say ‘Doctor of God’, at least I don’t believe that’s ‘allowed’ by the Church.

Not an isolated case

The Vihara Maha Devi case is not an isolated one, this too we must remember. This has happened in Sri Lanka with cases being documented as far back as 1923, when a ‘pastor’ by the name of Paul belonging to the Pentecostal Order prevented a follower from going to hospital to deliver a baby and the woman died. She was surreptitiously buried in his garden. Such ‘faith’ similarly took the life of Jackoline Ruby Seneviratne, a schoolgirl from Hanwella in July 2003. Following ‘Father Mano’s’ advice, the parents kept the child at home. She died.

Nisansala Pabodini of Ganemulla died in the same way. Her parents took her to a ‘faith healing’ gathering conducted by ‘Pastor Ratnasekera’. It is reported that participants were given king coconut laced with various intoxicants in a ‘prayer’ operation in Kandy. There are countless such incidents.

And it is not the case that such incidents happen only in Sri Lanka. There are well documented cases in the USA, for example, where parents have been convicted for neglect after their children died because they refused to take them to the doctor. Other countries have laws against ‘quackery’. We ought to have too.

Quack doctoring

Let us forget the ‘faith’ part of it. This is nothing but quack doctoring. If this is sanctioned citing ‘religious freedom’, then there is no argument for any kind of certification for medical practitioners. An extension of the argument would make meaningless all degrees and all other professional certification processes. Why bother when all you have to do is to hang some religious symbol over one’s ‘dispensary’ and let the authorities worry about offending the grandmasters of ‘religious freedom’?

It is alright to have religious beliefs, including the belief that faith can somehow heal. It is alright to tell others this also. It is not alright, however, to prescribe anything apart from ‘belief’. And this goes for all other non-certified practices associated with healing illnesses including the operations of kattadiyas. I am sure that many have died following the ‘medical’ prescriptions of countless kattadiyas. One should not be stopped from attending such operations, but the kattadiya cannot be allowed to prescribe any form of treatment for the patient. Indeed, all such operations should be sanctioned by a certified physician and because theoretically certain ailments may be exacerbated by even simple exposure to dew, for example, there has to be a certified medical practitioner in attendance at all times.

Prevent such tragedies
Quite apart from the religious overtones of this incident and the religio-political-cultural dimensions of such so-called evangelical operations, it is imperative that the relevant authorities act swiftly to prevent such tragedies from occurring. One more death would be too many.

As for the faith healers, their champions and those who look the other way because a few people belonging to other religious faith are getting converted to some form of Christianity (and because this is better, politically, for all Christian denominations), I think Jesus Christ would be appalled. But then again, I am not a Christian and cannot presume to know what he would have thought. Perhaps some decent Christian (and I believe there is an equal percentage of ‘decent’ people in all religious communities) would enlighten me.
Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer who can be reached at malinsene@gmail.com.