Trinity Troubles

Ms Leela Ramdeen, Chair of The Catholic Commission for Social Justice and Archbishop Edward Gilbert continued the philosophy of the late Archbishop Anthony Pantin with the recent release that supported the lobby to change the Trinity Cross. The late Archbishop, held in high esteem today by Catholics and non-Catholics, had similarly expressed a position on the need to address the Trinity Cross over three decades ago. The legal action by the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha Inc and the Islamic Relief Centre really marks the failure of civil society to resolve the issue of the inappropriateness of the Trinity Cross in a plural society. The statement from Leela Ramdeen, Chair of The Catholic Commission for Social Justice no doubt came as a surprise to many Catholics who hold the view that the Trinity Cross should never be changed. Indeed, monitoring the talk-show circuit and seeing a few letters to the editor reflect the view that some Catholics believe that to change the Trinity Cross is an affront to Christianity.

Some Catholic contributors to talk-shows have accused Leela Ramdeen of being an apostate for supporting the heathen Hindus and Muslims. christian Charity appears not to extend to non-Christians. These very persons in their contributions ironically also point out that the Trinity Cross is not a religious symbol yet they defend it remaining on religious grounds. In so doing these advocates only lend further support for the Hindu and Muslim position as to why these latter two cannot accept the Trinity Cross as a national award. Ironically the Pentecostal community has remained silent on this issue, while the Anglican community made only a passing commentary. The Trinity Cross is the country’s highest national award. It takes the form and shape of a cross. The SDMS and other non-Christian religious bodies have always objected to the retention and use of the Trinity Cross as the nation’s highest award. The objection is grounded in the fact that the Cross is widely known and perceived as a Christian symbol.

The Cross symbolises the Christian belief that the son of Mary was crucified on a wooden cross. The concept of the “Trinity” is also strongly connected to the Christian faith, as it symbolises the three aspects of Godhead — God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. Leela Ramdeen, must be further commended as she also subsequently announced to the media that she hand- delivered a letter to Prime Minister Patrick Manning on the need to change the Trinity Cross. The Maha Sabha and the CCSJ recognises that the Inter-Religious Organisation, of which the Catholic Church is a member, has in the past also called for a change of name of the Trinity Cross. The IRO for many years has voiced the need to change the Trinity Cross. Sri Sat Maharaj, the Secretary General of the Maha Sabha, at the press conference that signalled the intent to begin this historic legal action against the Trinity Cross indicated; “It is our feverent hope that this constitutional motion will force the government to confront this long outstanding issue. We trust that the filing of this case will not be used as a convenient excuse by the Prime Minister to avoid dealing with the large issue.

“We are prepared to reconsider our position on litigating this matter if the Government at anytime indicates its readiness to implement the recommendations of the De La Bastide report. This matter is not about politics because all administrations and political parties have consistently failed to deal with this issue. It is about living in a society that is just and fair and one that is willing to practise the equality rather than merely allow politicians to get away by glibly preaching it. It is a journey towards finding an equal place.” Despite these recent attempts to attempt to address the Trinity Cross dilemma with mediation, Prime Minister Patrick Manning instead chose to spend taxpayers money by going to the High Court on the matter. The State only recently invested in the establishment of the Family Court where “mediation-styled” resolutions will be given an opportunity over the normal “adversarial-type” resolutions. Ironically when it comes to the national family, the State prefers the adversarial-type approach. The Manning administration has shown it is prepared to spend hundred of thousands of taxpayers dollars to defend its policy on radio licences that the courts have declared to be discriminatory.

The Manning administration has also indicated that is also willing to spend hundred of thousands of taxpayers dollars to defend the Central Bank secrecy and the appointment of a single director. Ironically the award scheme that is being so valiantly defended by the State is perhaps the greatest “pappyshow” perpetrated upon the peoples of Trinidad and Tobago. The De La Bastide Commission reported “Spink of London, dealers in fine art and royal medallists, had proposed to His Excellency the President (in 1995) certain modifications and enhancements to better serve the diverse requirements of the Trinidad and Tobago honours systems. “Spink indicated that the Trinidad and Tobago honours system at present did not conform to international standards.” Indeed the Commission also implied the awards as they stand currently can be better described as the Prime Minister’s Award rather than the National Awards. This conclusion was no doubt arrived at due to the veto the Prime Minister has over the recommendations of the National Awards Committee. Whatever the legal outcome, the Prime Minister is obviously prepared to drag the Trinity Cross through the mud to defend an award that is not regarded as national by significant segments of the population.