Let me state from the very outset that I regret that the Catholic News chose to unequivocally endorse the changing of the name of the county’s highest award when it did and in the manner it did.

I sincerely believe that the editorial of June 11 was a mistake and has not been helpful in resolving the issues at a time when more honest dialogue and thoughtful analysis are needed.

Historically it is known that the nation’s highest award, the Trinity Cross was named after the country (the larger island being named after la santissima Trinidad by Columbus). It has also been suggested that the “cross” is not religious in nature but a “heraldic” cross.

On the other hand, proponents of a change in the name of the award state that the words “Trinity” and “cross” particularly in Western society are weighed down with Christian baggage. Furthermore, Mr Justice Jamadar in his judgement on the matter brought before him by the Maha Sabha made allusion to the non-recognition of Hindu and Muslim marriages until more recent times.

This is but further evidence of the Christian bias of the society (even though Orisha and Spiritual Baptist marriages were treated in the same manner). It is evidence of that “something” in the country’s psyche to which the Catholic News editorial of Sunday, June 11 makes reference. It is this something, says the editorial “which made the title of the award seem permissible even in a multi-religious society”.

The editorial concludes: “It is not the case today”.The logic seems unassailable. A neutral award for a multi-religious society. We should accept with good grace, the government’s decision to change the name of the award.

Unfortunately, some questions remain. I question the basic premise on which objection to the Trinity Cross is being made. It is said that there is discomfort, unease, even revulsion to the “pro-Christian” term Trinity Cross on the part of many (?) in the non-Christian community.

This revulsion it seems, does not extend to Christian education. Catholic and other Christian educational institutes have long been favoured by many members of the Hindu and Muslim communities. Do we not invoke the Trinity on a daily basis? Are our Catholic schools not populated with these offensive crosses?

When it comes to the education of their children, our non-Christian sisters and brothers have been making, and continue to make these accommodations without much disturbance. There has been no mass exodus of non-Christians from Catholic schools.

No demands on the state to build non-Christian schools NOW as a matter of urgency. Furthermore my lived experience as a Catholic priest in this country leads me to believe that by and large, non-Christians are quite comfortable with this symbol of religious discrimination.

Many of us have “non-Christian parishioners” – if such a thing exists! They seek us out for prayer and counselling on a regular basis, we bless their cars, they adorn these cars with rosaries, they frequent our holy places (e.g. “the Mount”) attend our religious festivals (Sooparee Mai ) and from time to time attend Mass. 

None of this squares with the reasons advanced by the promoters of the change. At the end of the day I am left with more questions.

If the reasons advanced for the changing of the name of the award are not “genuine” reasons, are the real reasons to be found elsewhere?
This discomfort with the “Trinity Cross”, was it always there lurking in the shadows or is it something of more recent vintage?

Let’s face it. The Catholic News is right. The changing of the name of the award should not be seen as an attack on one’s faith. This does not mean however that we do not have an obligation to ensure that the issue is properly ventilated.

There is a feeling by many citizens that the ultimate aim of the proponents of the change is really a direct challenge to the society’s self-understanding. What seemed before like a perfectly reasonable request for neutrality in our system of national awards is now hopelessly entangled in politics and race.

This most recent push for a change in the name of the Trinity Cross may be serving as a rallying point, a kind of “war cry” if you will. There is muttering about “changing the name of the country”. Is this the next logical step? Why not?

If we begin to wipe away history and remove all Christian references, where does it all lead? I am sure that more questions could be posed and I believe that as Trinbagonians we must joyfully accept the challenge of analysis and intellectual debate.

I have absolute confidence in my countrymen that we have the ability to arrive at creative solutions. We must however, avoid easy, pious, answers. We must avoid “taking basket” and be wary of slogans such as “discrimination” which has become something of a shibboleth.

Finally I end as I began: with regret. I regret that because the issue of the Trinity Cross has been presented in religious terms, the entire debate could be framed in religious terms.

I can see fundamentalists on both sides of the divide, glaring at each other, swords drawn. Will we now see inter-racial conflict disguised as religious conflict? If this happens, religion will be the only loser in this battle.