Apart form the sporadic appearance of some Dominican,
Franciscan and Jesuit missionaries in the 16th and early 17th centuries,
we may say that mission work in Thailand (at that time the kingdom of Siam)
started with the arrival of the first members of the Foreign Missions Society
of Paris (Missions Etrangères), only just founded then, and particularly
with the arrival of Mgr. de la Motte there in 1662.1
The Thailand mission is therefore more than three hundred years old, though there were never more than a few thousand Catholics till near the end of the nineteenth century. Of its history we need only remember a few facts which are still relevant today.
a) The most important feature is, without any doubt, that the fist converts were not Thais (or Siamese) but refugees or immigrants from the neighboring countries of Southeast Asia, Chinese or Annamites who came from districts where Confucians and Mahayana Buddhists lived peacefully together.
When Mgr. de la Motte and his companions arrived they no doubt found an already existing community of some two thousand Catholics, but in fact these Catholics lived on the fringe of the local society, even if they were Asians or descendants from Portuguese mercenaries at the court of Ayudhya who had married Chinese, Annamite or Cambodian women. Moreover, it was to these troops that the missionaries who preceded Mgr. de la Motte had been sent.
b) Again, Mgr. de la Motte himself had been sent not so much to evangelize the Kingdom of Siam as to set up a seminary where Chinese and Annamites could be trained for the apostolate in their country of origin. He did in fact establish such a seminary in Ayudhya, the capital. It could not stay there for long because the city suffered a Burmese invasion a century later. And so it moved from place to place till it finally settled down in Penang (Malaya), where it still remains.
As the "General College" (the name by which the Seminary was known) had only a small staff, it is understandable that the mission to the Siamese took second place after the training of the seminarians. The clergy of the General College became the new nucleus around which the Catholic community could gather, and although it slowly progressed the new converts were Chinese and Annamites, as before.
c) Another feature which marked the beginnings of the mission was its lack of success among the Theravada Buddhists of Siam, in spite of the hopes raised by the short-lived courtship between the court of Ayudhya and that of Versailles, when King Narai (1657-1668) hoped to obtain French military aid against Dutch aggression. As long as Christian limited their proselytism to Chinese or Annamites, the Buddhists were tolerant enough but as soon as Christianity threatened to become a challenge to Buddhism, the relations became very cool indeed. On some occasions this turned even to violence when the alliance between the Church of Siam and the great powers (France particularly) began to appear a threat to the independence of the nation. Because Catholicism succeeded with the "foreigners" but failed with the Buddhists, it was from the start seen as a foreign religion: it was not only brought to Siam by Western foreigners but succeeded only with Asian foreigners. And this is by and large still the impression one gets today.
d) For about 250 years missionary and pastoral work in Thailand was in the hands of missionaries who were almost exclusively French. It was these also who were in charge of the formation of local priests in the Penang seminary. Thus in many respects the Church in Thailand today is a faithful reflection of the Church as it used to be in France.
e) In recent times there are two facts that point towards the continuation of the foreign image. On the one hand, there have been some missionary successes among the people that live in the mountains and are ethnically different from the Siamese, and on the other hand, there has been an increase in foreign missionaries who, expelled from China at the time of the Communist revolution, were only too glad to find in Thailand the same kind of Chinese as those they had so recently left behind. So one could hardly expect the great increase in missionary personnel to divert the Catholic Church of Siam from its preoccupation with the non-Thai minorities, which it has inherited from the past.2
The non-Catholic Christian presence in Thailand comprises some 30,000 people in a dozen different denominations of varying importance. A number of these communities are connected with the American military and with other American personnel engaged in various tasks of development.3
The largest and most important of these denominations is the "Church of Christ in Thailand", established since 1934 without any foreign aid.4
It is composed of Thai, Chinese and Karen congregations. It started as an American Presbyterian mission, and brought together four other important groups, including Baptists, and has more than 200 churches in the country.
Most of these non-Catholic Christians are found in Bangkok and in the North of the country. The clergy of these denominations are practically all foreign, with the exception of the Church of Christ in Thailand, where almost all the ministers are Thai, Chinese or Karen.
The Thai or Chinese members of these churches are rather different from those belong to the Catholic communities in that they do not have what one might call a religious "middle class", if this term may be used in a religious sense. The best among them are very good indeed and far more involved in national life than the Catholics. But these live side by side with a large number who are nominal rather than real members. The reason seems to lie in a superficial way of setting about evangelization, which some denominations seem to restrict to handing out bibles or religious pamphlets.
Bangkok is the seat of the East Asia Christian Conference (recently renamed as the "Christian Conference of Asia"). This, too, shows a feature which is typical of the non-Catholic Christians. They have far stronger links with other Christian Churches in Asia than the Catholics have. Is this because their division makes them long for unity while the Catholic Church of Thailand is still lacking a proper identity? Whatever the explanation, the E.A.C.C. shows an awareness of the problems of the Asian churches that is several years ahead of that of the Catholic Church.5
To describe the Catholics in Thailand in detail is a risky procedure. It is too easy to give the impression of a cohesion and importance which it does not have. If we were to ignore the geographical dispersion of the Church, there would be no reason why Thailand should have more than one diocese, and even that diocese should not be very important. So in all that follows the reader should keep at the back of his mind that we are talking about a micro-church.6
At present Thailand has 239,935 Catholics with a population of 57,788,965 (see Table 5.1). This means that for every Catholic there are 240 non-Catholics, or that there are about four per thousand. So the Catholic Church, with 0.4%, come third on the list of religious groups, after the Buddhists (95%), the Muslim (4%), and is followed by other Christians, the Brahmins, Sikhs, the Hindus, etc.
The fact that the Catholics are numerically a very
small minority nevertheless hides the other fact that in the educational
field the Church has a definite
importance7 and the other fact that, like all the other Christian denominations,
it links Thailand with Christendom as it exists in the wide world outside.
On the other hand, it also shows, all too clearly, that in practice the
Church has not made its mark in all the other fields of national life, intellectually,
culturally, politically, economically, and even - which is far more serious - spiritually.8
The failure to make an impact on
national life is also explained by the way Christianity is scattered all
over the place, although this rather haphazard dispersal itself may be explained
by the conspicuous failure of Christianity wherever it could have made contact
with Buddhism.9
Since, moreover, these Catholic groups come from a background that is not Thai, it is hardly astonishing that Catholic influence counts for very little. Even so, the generalization that Catholics are not considered to be genuine Thais needs some minor qualifications. First of all, the Chinese of Thailand are far better assimilated to the local population than those in most countries of Southeast Asia. Moreover, the Catholics of Northeast Thailand are usually of local (Thai-Lao) stock, but the people that live along the Mekong river tend to look more towards Laos than towards Thailand, because, like all major rivers, this border river makes more for unity than for division.
Finally it should be noted that only very recently
an official government statement referred to Christians as "Thais".
One should not make too much of this, since the government is far more concerned
with applying the name Thai to the Moslems who were inclined toward separation
than to the Christians. It is nevertheless the first time that the adjective
Thai has been applied to the followers of non-Buddhist "foreign" religions.10
Buddhism is the established religion in Thailand, and the king as its patron must be a Buddhist.11
But all religions are protected by the constitution:
All persons are equal and protected by constitution, whatever their origin or religion. All are free to profess any religion, any religious belief, or belong to any religious sect, and to practice the worship liked with it, on condition that there is no interference with civic duties, public order and morality. In the exercise of this freedom everyone is protected (by constitution) against any act on the part of the State which would interfere with it.12
In 1969 diplomatic relations were established between Thailand and the Vatican, although its representative is not the dean of the diplomatic corps, and therefore only has the rank of pro-nuncio. The Church is also assured of the right to build and manage its schools once the Ministry has given permission. Both state schools and private schools are subject to exactly the same control.
Parish priests and their assistants are exempt from military service, and it is up to the ecclesiastical superior to notify the authorities of this fact in each individual case.
Religious teaching has been allowed on the school premises, but must take place outside school hours even in confessional schools, till only in late 1993 that it has been allowed otherwise.
On the part of the government, the department for religious matters is a sector of the Ministry of Education, and is responsible for the relations with all religions, and therefore also with the Church. Here there has been some confusion, but with the setting up of the Episcopal Conference this confusion is gradually being cleared up.
The actual state of affairs corresponds to the situation in law. The Church in fact makes full use of what the constitution and the laws have granted it. Thus Catholic schools, like the private schools, are subsidized in certain cases by the Ministry. The Church also receives the symbolic contributions which the Department of Religious Affairs gives to the various religions in proportion to their membership.
On the other hand, the importance of these facts should not be exaggerated. The tolerance is real, and here the official attitude reflects that of the average Buddhist who considers that all religion is good since it contributes to a higher morality in society. But this becomes only a kink of sympathy where the relations are influenced by personal friendship, which happens to be the case with many who have been educated in Catholic colleges.
This tolerance makes it the more regrettable that
the Church is so little involved in the life of the nation, and even seems
content to let things rest there. It may well be that the Church is tolerated
because it keeps in the background, and that a more active commitment might
look like an attempt to increase its influence, particularly since so far
it has not proved that it is seriously interested in the country. But perhaps
the bad impression would be given only if the Church acted as a power-structure.
It would be a different matter if the Church's image reflected its spiritual message.13
It is worth mentioning that the distribution of the territories was designed to leave a homogeneous clergy (local or foreign) in the new diocese or the original diocese. This has led to a certain isolationism in these dioceses, and has brought about a local individualism which does not encourage exchange.14
The Catholic Church in Thailand consists of two ecclesiastical provinces. The one comprises the dioceses of Chantaburi, Ratchaburi, Suratthani, Nakhonsawan, and Chiengmai, as suffragans of the archdiocese of Bangkok; the other the dioceses of Ubon, Udon, and Nakhonratchasima, as suffragans of the archdiocese of Thare.
Four dioceses are allocated to the local clergy (Bangkok, Chantaburi, Thare, and Ratchaburi); three to Paris Missionaries (Ubon, Nakhonratchasima, and Nakhonsawan); one to the Salesians (Suratthani); one to the Redemptorists (Udon); and one to the Fathers of Betharam (Chiengmai).
In area Thailand is about the same as France, or as twice as Italy, and only two of its dioceses are smaller than Belgium. The proportion of Catholics to the whole population varies considerably from one diocese to another. It is highest in the central and north-eastern dioceses, and lowest in the south which is predominantly Moslem (see Table 5.1).
| Diocese 1992 |
Area in sq.Km |
Total Population |
Number of Catholics |
Proportion of Catholics in Total Population |
| Bangkok | 18,831 |
10,380,931 |
70,221 |
1/148 |
| Chantaburi | 34,000 |
3,633,554 |
28,562 |
1/127 |
| Ratchaburi | 31,362 |
2,210,452 |
16,436 |
1/134 |
| Suratthani | 76,450 |
7,310,000 |
6,171 |
1/1185 |
| Chiengmai | 89,483 |
5,246,750 |
21,605 |
1/243 |
| Nakhonsawan | 93,547 |
7,328,503 |
8,279 |
1/885 |
| Udon | 50,049 |
4,954,376 |
15,332 |
1/323 |
| Ubon | 53,917 |
7,296,361 |
21,160 |
1/345 |
| Thare & Nongseng | 25,447 |
3,363,250 |
47,243 |
1/71 |
| Nakhonratchasima | 41,148 |
4,755,860 |
4,926 |
1/965 |
| Other areas | 1,308,928 |
|||
Total |
514,234 |
57,788,965 |
239,935 |
1/240 |
Table 5.1 Statistics by Diocese 199215
It is not easy to measure the growth of the Catholic Church in Thailand on the basis of diocesan statistics. Three of the present dioceses were for a long time under the Vicariate Apostolic of Laos, and sometimes it is impossible to find any statistics at all.16
Among figures that are available are in Table 5.2.
These figures are based on the annual report sent to Rome, or those of them that could be found. One can hardly rely on the totals reported by each diocese.
Year |
Number of Catholics |
1662 |
2,000 |
1785 |
1,372 |
1802 |
2,500 |
1881 |
3,000 |
1950 |
82,910 |
1955 |
94,726 |
1960 |
111,857 |
1966 |
133,798 |
1970 |
152,112 |
1977 |
168,824 |
1980 |
154,265 |
1981 |
191,909 |
1984 |
204,250 |
1988 |
215,923 |
1992 |
239,935 |
Table 5.2 Growth of the Catholic Church in Thailand17
The rate of conversion in Thailand is very slow. The
number of catechumens is always less than one hundred, even in the best
dioceses. To calculate the growth of the Catholic Church in Thailand, one
may simply take the birth-rate of the country and then add some tens of
adult conversions each year.18
Even here one has to be careful because
of the mobility of the population. A number of Catholics from the provinces
leave their villages and seek their fortune in Bangkok or elsewhere. This
internal mobility is an important factor in Thailand, especially in the
last three decades. Usually these Catholics are still on the census list
of their original parish, but they may well be included in that of the parish
they belong to at present.
In fact, if we compare the figure of 1950 with those of 1970 and the latest 1992, we reach practically the same percentage:
1950: 82,910 Catholics in a population of 18,000,000, = 0.46%1970: 152,112 Catholics in a population of 34,484,000, = 0.44%
1992: 239,935 Catholics in a population of 57,788,965, = 0.42%
So it seems that the growth of the Church in Thailand
goes hand in hand with the increase of the population.19
Apart from the birth-rate, the growth
of the Catholic community is due mainly to mixed marriages, except in the
Northeast, as the Catholic partner is usually strong enough to stipulate
the conversion of the other. For a long time the authorities were rather
rigid on this point, but today it is much easier to obtain a dispensation.
The lack of checks makes it obviously difficult
to get any reliable figures here too. This holds particularly for Bangkok,
where the parishes are organized on a personal preferences basis rather
than on that of geographical boundaries. Every family goes to the parish
of its choice, sometimes for reasons that they cannot explain themselves.
So the numbers of those that go regularly to church on Sundays are somewhat
difficult to establish. Yet, this would be interesting in order to get some
idea of the almost indisputable decline in church-going among the urban
youth. The figures given by the parish priests seem exaggerated: they vary
from 30% to 60% for Sunday Mass attendance. For if we take the figure for
Easter communions in the rural parishes as our starting-point because they
are more homogeneous and verifiable, we find that between 65% and 70% fulfill
their Easter duties. The figure certainly does not hold for the town, and
this casts doubt on the figures referred to above for assistance at Mass on Sundays.20
Where Thailand is concerned ecclesiology should
begin with the People of God, or at least the ecclesiology of Vatican II.
This may sound utopian, because Vatican II has practically had no effect
at all in Thailand. Here the logical approach begins with the top of the pyramid.21
With the exception of a few groups,
the Catholic communities have remained as passive as in the past. This is
not a matter of the personal life of the Catholics. Individually some Catholics
may well be very active, and very devoted to the Church (in the sense of
the hierarchy, the clergy, the nuns and the parish), but they expect all
directives to come from the authorities. They have been a minority for centuries,
and so they are in no way anxious to take the initiative. It would demand
a real conversion, almost a change of religion, if they were asked to understand
that they, too, are the Church, and that they should be Catholic grown-ups.
And since little is asked of them, the situation remains stagnant. This
situation reinforced by cultural, social and religious factors.
From the cultural point of view, even if they are not converts from Theravada Buddhism,
so popular among the Thais, Catholics live in that traditional Asiatic culture
which instinctively relies on the teaching of a traditional past and the
masters of this teaching. History, too, seen elsewhere as a common progress
towards an eschatological future, means little in this culture. The development
of man is purely personal, and a matter of spiritual progress. Even where
Asia is keen on technological progress, the ultimate value remains self-discipline.
One can only contribute to the existence of others by becoming a better
human being oneself. Since the ideal remains an inward process, unencumbered
by the confusion of history, the real question is to follow the teaching
of the best Master. For Christians Jesus takes the place of Buddha, but
the basic attitude remains the same: to conform as far as possible to the
teaching of the Master.22
From the social point of view, even if the Thais are proud of a country that has always
been free, they have lived until recently under a regime of royal absolutism.
Authority has an a priori claim on their respect, and although there
is plenty of room for irony and criticism, they feel remorse whenever this
authority is questioned. The over-hierarchical image of the Church in the
past, its apparent affinity with an absolute monarchy, suited the traditional
mentality of the Thais admirably.23
Lastly, from the socio-religious point of view,
the rise of Catholicism in Thailand was unfortunately accompanied by the
Jansenism and clericalism of the missionaries. Narrow-mindedness and rigorism
remain difficult to eliminate, the more so as the faith of the Catholics
shows more concern with the order of points of belief and the observing
of pious practices than with the message of liberation.24
One may wonder whether the early way of evangelizing
Thailand, which has left its mar on the Church there to this day, really
constituted a spiritual enrichment for those Christians. The moral tone
which came in with Jansenism was certainly not comparable to that of Buddhism.
Its niggling legalism still inhibits the kind of responses that would normally
make Catholics more adult. This is reinforced by clericalism, which, as
it was the mentality of the countries the missionaries came from, inevitably
influenced their work in Thailand.25
With his unquestioned social prestige in the communities, the priest is brought into everything and intervenes in everything. The diversity of his role lies more in matters of civil or social organization, from the setting up of an electrical power-station to the exploitation of land owned by the Church, than in theology and in interpreting the signs of the times. Moreover, the parish frequently owns the land on which the Catholic work or live. This creates confusion in regard to a priest's competence and alienation among Catholics from the Church in its land-owning role.26
There would be less objection if the relations between Catholics and their clergy were limited to an exchange of spiritual and material services, in the sense that the Catholic laity provided the clergy with the basic means of living in return for spiritual services, as is the case with the Buddhists and their monks. In fact, however, whether they like it or not, Catholics and their clergy are trapped in a net of material and economic relations not conducive to disinterested spirituality, and, because of the consequent mutual alienation, the laity cannot achieve the maturity they should have acquired.
The relations between clergy and laity are like
that existed in ancient Rome between the patron and his clients. The patron,
who controls the investments, can offer his clients material benefits (such
as cheap education or the children), and the clients provide other material
benefits in return. This system not only puts the priest in a place where
he does not belong, but it exposes him to "corruption" by the
material privileges that derive from it and so makes him insensitive to
the real needs of the people.27
There are no doubt many factors which may explain
the passive attitude of the Catholics, but the most alienating and the most
dangerous are certainly this Jansenism and this clericalism. These factors,
more than any others, make Catholics live in a climate that is very different
from that of Buddhists in whose society they live. In particular, they encourage
an infantilism with more than one serious consequence. Here and there, however,
there are signs of a change in the situation. As one bishop put it not so
long ago: it is the faithful who must be evangelized first.28
It will be clear that enthusiasm for the encounter with Buddhism is not a characteristic of institutional Catholicism in Thailand. Apart from some recent initiatives to be mentioned later, the record is almost blank on both sides.29
Both Christians and Buddhists can, of course, describe up to a point how the "others" behave, but when it comes to essentials there is only a deep and persistent mutual ignorance.
If, even today, people make "contact" and are proud of it, one has to understand that this contact is limited to the decorous and peaceful presence of some officials at the Christian ceremony of opening a school, or some similar event, and, on the other side, the presence of some Christians at Buddhist events of the same nature. This kind of purely formal contact does give some "face", but it only confirms Thais and Buddhists alike in their opinion that the Church is trying, as it has always tried, to create a good impression in order to strengthen its influence.30
This is how the Thais see the Church: powerful because of its efficiency and its foreign resources, tenacious in its attempt to increase its influence, clever in its politics which hide its imperialistic maneuvering under the guise of putting Thais in key positions. Such a view is only natural in so far as the image the Church presented is not that of a spiritual presence. Buddhism as an institution obviously has its own shortcomings. It remains nevertheless a fact that in Thailand the Buddhist presence does not fail to be a spiritual one. The weight of the "establishment" in the Catholic Church is less well balanced.31
This mutual lack of understanding goes back practically to the beginnings of Christianity in Thailand. It carries all the implications of the conflict between two apparently irreconcilable anthropologies: the Christian sees man in the light of faith, the Buddhist sees him exclusively in the light of reason. The Buddhist, extremely mistrustful of all metaphysics, and a fortiori of all theology, readily classified Christianity as a form of animism, and indeed the non-Christian elements mixed up with the faith invite such an interpretation.
On the other hand, it is enough for Catholics, convinced that they have the whole truth and nothing but the truth, where confronted with this wisdom so sure of itself, to recoil with horror from such "pride". And it is enough for Catholic to notice that Buddhist people still show some remnants of animist or Hindu practices (which the better disciples of Buddha only tolerate) to make them point the finger at Buddhist "superstition".
With rare exceptions there was no serious contact for a long time simply because there was no interest. A few missionaries, here and there, guessed that Buddhism was more than a random collection of rather vague beliefs but over against this there is the attitude of those who not long ago edited and re-edited a "refutation of Buddhism" in questions and answers, aimed at the man in the street.32 It would have been more difficult thus to dispose of Buddhism at a more serious level.
A new attempt has been made recently by a Catholic
priest who went to live and work in a Buddhist monastery in a pure search
for understanding, as so many others have done.
This is unique, and it is not possible to say
what it will lead to. There certainly is no guarantee of success , since the indulgence it
has so far enjoyed from the institutional Church may well be due only to
regarding it as the vagary of an individual, while the real significance
of it has not yet been grasped.33
Christianity has been in Thailand for more than three hundred years, its message has not however penetrated the hearts of the Thai people. Many reasons have been given till now. However, in order to arrive at a more complete picture of the Catholic Church in Thailand, the researcher will highlight some existential difficulties encountered in the work of evangelization today. They are more of sentimental and social character rather than a religious one. Some of them will be singled out with a brief indication of the socio-economic and political background.
As mentioned earlier, Christianity in Thailand
remains the religion of the minority and is looked upon as a religion of
the foreigners, a foreign religion. The historical fact that, in the nearby
countries, Christianity entered together with the colonial thrust of the
European countries aggravates the situation. The effort of evangelization
with its original aim of converting to the institutional Catholic Church
is thus seen as the effort of colonizing the country for a foreign power.
Therefore, the idea that evangelization is a threat to the sovereignty of
the nation itself is used as a pretext to hinder the effort of evangelization.
It seems to be the time that the church has to struggle to free herself
from this historical burden, from the stigma of being foreign to the eyes
of both her children and the Thai people, and from the scars of being attached
to alienating structures.34
From the cultural point of view, Christianity that we know is but of Western mentality, understanding and religiosity. This brings with it certain difficulties of comprehension for the Thai people. The fact that Western categories are used in expressing the teaching of Jesus and in stating its theological interpretation creates a cultural gap between the evangelizer and the listener as well as the general audience. Thus evangelization is seen as another kind of colonization that we may term intellectual colonization, which is not less dangerous than the political one. The fact that our liturgy is Latin with all its characteristics, it results that our religiosity is expressed in terms of language that is not readily comprehensible to the faithful and to others. The use of vernacular in liturgy does not change much of this situation. Because what has been done so far is only to transplant another mentality and way of thinking and living (considered as universal truth) to a soil in which it can hardly grow.35
Evangelization with the aim of converting people to the institutional Church constitutes a threat to Buddhism itself. Thus instead of living together in a community of plurality of faith, we live in constant tension between different Creeds. Each considers all others as potential enemies. Thus there is no real dialogue of life, and the faithful of each Creed shut themselves in their own community without any sharing of particular values and spirituality that they believe in and live. We live in the religious ghetto, even though on the social level we might be friends and collaborators. In other words, there seems to be an urgent need to come closer to a point of living together in an openness that respects the other's belief and practices. It would mean that the Church needs to emerge from self-centeredness towards a maturity, which urges her to reach out to all Buddhist brothers and sisters.36
As a matter of fact, one cannot understand Thai culture without having a knowledge of Buddhism. Buddhism indeed bears influence on the people's outlook of life, their values, behavior, politics, development, and on judgments and well as their formulation. It has been closely intertwined and thus identified with the Thai culture and even the whole Thai nation.
By this same token, Christianity has been seen as Western culture. Christian formation as well as their life-style are associated with the Western system. As a matter of fact, Catholic schools and institutes are too often known to the Thai people to be the best in their teaching of Western languages, as well as their names to be those of Western nature. As a consequence, the Thai people, consciously or unconsciously, are afraid of being Christian because of the fear of losing their being Thai, that is, their Thai culture and identity, both in its existential and relational aspects.37
The prevalent attitude in Asia, particularly in the Thai society, is that all Religions are the same. It implies that they are all one in their essential contents, although each expresses them in his own particular way which is largely due to each one's historical and cultural background. Such the indifference is also seen in the expression like all Religions are equal,...all are good, that is, they all have the same aim in so far as they all are expressions of man's quest for the eternal, and all teach people to be good.
As a consequence, there is a strong conviction that man should be faithful to the traditional religion in which he was born. Conversion to another faith is considered a betrayal. Moreover, there is the belief that Buddhism, in its essential contents, is the one true religion, universal and eternal, valid for all times. Buddhists will easily claim that the essential teaching of Christianity can find a place within this universal religion.
Besides the negative relationship between the Buddhists and Catholics, there remain several problems both within the local Church in Thailand and the Universal Church. The prominent one seems to be that of the division among Christians who claim to follow Christ who bring peace, love, and unity. This contradiction of life has become even more palpable to the Thai people in the today world wherein communication is as fast as lightning. And indeed, if divided Christendom is the source of weakness for the West, it is a sin and a stumbling block for the Thai people who value peace and harmony above all else.
2 Cf Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, pp. 17-18.
3 Cf DAVID B. BARRETT ed., World Christian Encyclopedia. A comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World AD 1900-2000, p. 665. Missionaries of the Netherlands and London societies arrived in 1828, followed by representatives of the American Board in 1831, American Baptists who opened work among the Chinese in 1833 and American Presbyterians in 1840, the latter being the principal force at work among the Thai.
4 In 1934 the Presbyterians united with the Baptists, Disciples of Christ and Lutherans of the Marburger Mission (the latter two having begun work later) to form the Church of Christ in Thailand (CCT).
5 Cf Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, p.18.
6 Cf Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, p. 19.
7 Some leading Catholic schools and organizations are worth mentioning: Assumption University (St. Gabriel Brothers), St. Gabriel School (St. Gabriel Brothers), Don Bosco Technical School (Salesians), Mater Dei College (Ursulines), St. Joseph School (St. Paul de Chartres Sisters), The Catholic Students Center, The Catholic Teachers Association of Thailand, The Catholic Education Council of Thailand, The Catholic Council of Thailand for Development, etc.
8 Cf Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, p. 19.
9 Cf Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, p. 20.
10 Cf Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, p. 20.
11 Cf The 1968 Constitution, chapter II, section 6. The present Constitution has nothing changed on the matter.
12 Cf The 1968 Constitution, chapter III, section 24-26..
13 Cf Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, p. 20.
14 Cf Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, p. 21.
15 Cf Annuario Pontificio 1993. Città del Vaticano, Libreria Editrice Vaticana 1993.
16 Cf Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, pp. 22.
17 Cf Annuario Pontificio, various years; also Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, p. 22.
18 Cf Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, p. 22.
19 Cf Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, p. 23.
20 Cf Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, p. 23.
21Cf Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, p. 27.
22 Cf Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, p. 27.
23 Cf Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, p. 27.
24 Cf Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, p. 28.
25 Cf Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, p. 28.
26 Cf Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, p. 28
27 Cf Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, p. 28.
28 Cf Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, p. 28.
29 Cf Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, p. 29.
30 Cf Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, p. 29.
31 Cf Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, p. 29.
32 Bishop Pallegoix, in spite of the apparent affinity with the monarchy, wrote a book called Pudcha Wisachana (Questions and Answers). The book was originally written with this very title by Bishop Laneau in the Ayudhya period. Though it was meant to be a catechetical directives for exclusive use of the missionaries, the book caused a serious conflict with the Thai authority and the people in general due to its apologetic spirit against Buddhism. Bishop Laneau however had it totally burnt. With the publication of Pallegoix's Pudcha Wisachana in 1846, in which Buddhism was again sharply criticized, the relationship between the Buddhists and the Catholics seemed to have been broken. The criticism in fact involved a direct attack against Buddhism, such as, a) Buddhism is not a true religion. b) The Lord Buddha is neither worth venerating nor taking as abode of refuge. c) The Buddhist teachings on spirits, sin, heaven, etc., are but fake. d) The Buddhist Bible has no firm foundation. e) The Buddhist precepts are absurd and thus the prescriber can be said to be out of his mind.
The authority thus decided to order a halt in the distribution of the book and threatened the missionaries with detention were the order not complied with. However, the book was again published during Mgr. Vey's period (1894-1897), and once again by P. Peroudon in 1958. This last publication caused so widespread reaction among the Buddhist faithful that the government ordered the confiscation of the books, the closure of the Assumption Press which published it and finally summoned the priests responsible to give account.
The Pudcha Wisachana has brought not only the religious conflict but above all the heartache that has touched the very depth of the Thai people. The cut has indeed gone so deep that a complete cure would be hardly possible.
For further details, see P. MUTHUKAN, Answer to Reverend and Special Article, v. 8. Bangkok, Klang Wittaya Press 1974, pp. 20, 161; D. KAMDEE, Christian Evangelization in Thailand. Bangkok, Odeon Store Press 1986, pp. 70-71.
33 Cf Thailand in Transition: The Church in a Buddhist Country, p. 30.
34 Cf S. VIVAT - J. BANCHONG, Buddhism and Evangelization, in The Far East: Culture, Religions, and Evangelization. Dicastero per le Missioni, Salesiani, Roma 1989, pp. 50-51.
35 Cf S. VIVAT - J. BANCHONG, Buddhism and Evangelization, p. 51.
36 Cf S. VIVAT - J. BANCHONG, Buddhism and Evangelization, pp. 51-52.
37 For the past three years, the researcher has the opportunity of accompanying three catechumens of Buddhist origin toward Catholic faith. This difficulty has in fact become palpable to the researcher again and again in the accompaniment process. The fear is too often expressed in the question like... After being a Catholic, can I still join the funeral of my Buddhist parents or relatives?