by Fr Jason Gordon
(Catholic News Supplement - 19.3.2000)

People make history! Our beloved late Archbishop Anthony Pantin truly made history.

His ordination as the Eighth Archbishop of Port of Spain, closed the missionary era, when the Church was staffed almost exclusively by foreign priests. It was a major step in the Church becoming local.

His first years were marked by several history-making decisions - the young Archbishop's sympathy for the marchers in the 1970 Black Power movement; his move to Laventille as parish priest; his support for the decision of the Caribbean Conference of Churches to boycott the Governor General's reception on the grounds that the prolonged state of emergency was unjust.

To continue the list, we think of his fight against abortion, and falling values in every area; his defense of the poor and those on death row, his work for inter-religious dialogue and Christian unity.

A crucial moment was his intervention in the 1990 coup, where his voice on radio had an incredibly calming effect on the population. I am sure each of you could add to the list. I want simply to make the point - the man, Anthony Pantin, made History.

We can make another reading of history, more subtle, analysing the underlying structures, chart the currents, some of them sometimes going back a century or two. From this perspective we can say that history makes people.

In this article I would like to focus more upon the history that made Archbishop Pantin. I believe it allows us to evaluate better what distinguished him.

1968 was not just the year when the first local archbishop was consecrated. A Cultural Revolution was going on in the Western world.

In France, at the time a world cultural centre, the youths of Paris threw off the harness of tradition and authority, took to the streets, blockaded their universities, joining with factory workers. The spontaneous movement spread discord throughout the city and many other Western cities.

In America the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the Hippies, flower power and the protest against Vietnam all dominated the national stage. The social discourse was pervaded by race, class and gender. 1968 was also the year that Martin Luther King was killed.

For a brief while Western society was turned on its head, all authority was challenged, it was recognised that unjust structures had pervaded the fabric of society for many centuries.

The Cultural Revolution of 1968 permanently changed the social and cultural expectations for the modern citizen and the modern believer. It was this history, I believe, that made Anthony Pantin, the Archbishop that he became.

In Trinidad after independence in 1962, nationalism joined with Black Power to rupture racial and class privileges that had held sway for 500 years.

With the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) the doctrinaire mode of religion that had pervaded the Church since the Council of Trent (16th century), gave way to dialogue between the Church and the modern world.

The Church, as the Conciliar Document Gaudium et Spes emphasised in its opening lines, no longer had pat answers, it now had a listening ear and questions to ask. The Cultural Revolution of the city, coincided with the Theological Revolution within the Church.

The divide was between those who threw off the old theological and cultural structures and those who tenaciously clung to that which had endured the test of time. 1968 was the year that these two theological currents collided.

The collision was precipitated by the publication of the long awaited encyclical On Human Life (Humane Vitae). When Archbishop Pantin was consecrated on March 19, 1968, all of these currents of history were already colliding in the archdiocese of Port of Spain. In understanding these currents we will understand the legacy that he leaves.

Two things have often been said about the man Anthony Pantin. 1. He was a traditional Catholic. 2. He was naive. These two descriptions I believe, situate him within the currents - but they are open to alternative interpretations.

His spirituality revolved around the Divine Office, the Mass and the rosary. His pastoral zeal was to promote the Sacrament of Reconciliation by personal example. His apostolic outreach was in almsgiving to the poor.

The Archbishop's traditional approach to Catholicism was due to his personality and his training. Here, I believe was his unique contribution; from his secure traditional ground, he ventured out to enter into dialogue with all the currents, the trends, the actors who crossed the national stage.

Whether they agreed with his personal convictions or traditional interpretation of Catholicism, all respected him as a man of integrity, simplicity and humility.

To be traditional and naive are not necessarily vices. I would argue that in the case of the archbishop they were in large part virtues.

Because his religious world had never been ruptured, it held him secure without the need to defend or to impose regardless of the cost. This secure ground allowed Archbishop Pantin to be a bridge builder.

He built bridges between the new theology taking its inspiration from culture and the older theology dependent upon authority, between the new ecclesial movements - Better World, Charismatic Renewal, the lay communities - and the time-established parish communities.

In this multi-religious nation he built bridges of dialogue, tolerance and cooperation between the major religions (IRO), and between the Christian Churches (Christian Council of Trinidad and Tobago). Where before there was suspicion, discord and outright oppression he sought to bring understanding, humour and trust.

In the social sphere, through his personal integrity, he built bridges between rich and poor, both sides experiencing the freedom to approach him and being assured of a warm welcome. Between the condemned criminals and the rest of the society he stood as a sign of reconciliation.

Reconciliation for the Archbishop was not a matter of sacramental practice, but life engagement based simply upon what was obviously correct.

In 1970 he stood between the young radicals who he believed had a legitimate cause, and the rest of society, stricken by fear. In 1990, again as bridge builder he intervened.

Again in 1999 from his sick bed in Miami he intervened between Prime Minister and President. Often enough he used his office as Archbishop and his personal reputation as the materials with which to construct the bridge.

No one can be all things to all people. Especially not when the tide of history sweeps away cherished and secure traditions.

In his tenure that fell short of 32 years by one week, he paid a high price for his intervention. When factions are at war, the bridge builder often gets hit from all sides.

One event in the Church speaks loudly about the price of bridge building. It was the meeting of the clergy in 1972. The meeting has been referred to as "the psychological streaking".

Each of the currents of theology, spirituality and dare I say history, collided in this meeting. There was frustration and disillusionment, much blame was placed at the feet of the young Archbishop.

Speaking to me about this time he said that it was the only time in his tenure that he was depressed for several days. Shortly after this he developed severe colitis.

It was this incident and the way it affected his health that shaped the way he exercised his office from that time on. The truth is, no single person could have held together the warring factions. No single person could have been all things to all people.

In my opinion, the late Archbishop was as close as we will get to a national figure of reconciliation in this tumultuous land. His mission was his cross. It was upon this cross that he suffered, and yes, died.

"Traditional" and "naive" do not do justice to the man. What has been called traditional was a deeply rooted spiritual tradition that was at the center of his life. He came there to draw solace when the forces of history had their way with him.

The latitude that the late Archbishop gave to the different theological, social and religious agendas is proof of his bigness at heart. A lesser man would have pruned before the sapling grew.

The description of "naive", often a charge by those who feel themselves cheated of their agenda, was rather a testimony to the role he tried to play. Reconciler and bridge builder meant that wheat and darnel often grew together, waiting till harvest time.

The Archbishop's fight for the integrity of life on the national stage also guided his relationships with those over whom he was entrusted. He often gave many chances to "errant sheep", much to the disapproval of others.

The late Archbishop was a man of open reception, integrity and reconciliation. His tenure was through a most difficult period in world and church history where tensions and fractions prevailed.

History made him! For better or worse, he responded through his mission to be all things to all people understanding fully that "it is all God's work".