അല്മായശബ്ദം

The Faridabad Eparchy's latest email to us 
(Oops, sorry, they are not writing to "us", they are writing to "everyone" on our mailing list - so they can always claim they don't recognise us.

Unfortunately for them, the Holy Father recognises us, the Apostolic Nuncio recognises us, the Archbishop of Delhi recognises us; the Bishops Conferences of the US, Canada, Australia, England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland - all recognise us. 
All these bodies have formally acknowledged receipt of a copy of our Petition to the Holy Father; and one of these Conferences even included our Petition in the agenda for their annual meeting!

Anyway, here is the first official (from "Faridabad diocese") epistle to us:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Faridabad diocese <faridabaddiocese@googlemail.com>	Oct 6 (2 days ago)
to me

What happens with those Syro-Malabar faithful wishing to practice their faith in the Latin rite? Archbishop Anil and Archbishop Kuriakose explain in an intervciew in Malayala Manorama (Delhi edition)

1.     They are absolutely free to choose a rite, other than the one they inherited from their ancestors. But once they choose for one, be stable and stay there. Don’t put the feet in two boats.

2.     Those who wish to give up their ancestral rite, if they want to do so definitively, may please follow the canonical prescriptions of CCEO can. 37.

3.     The Eparchy of Faridabad forces no one to join its fold against one’s will.

4.     The transfer/change of rite involves no financial implication.

5.     Don’t blame the Pope for creating the new Eparchy. Remember the canonical principle prima sedes a nemine iudicatur.

6.      The Eparchy of Faridabad – and also Archdiocese of Delhi - will welcome any instructions of the Holy See in this regard.

7.     The norms of JPL bind also the religious, priests and seminarians of SM origin, when definitively decide to practice Latin rite (by joining a Latin Diocese or Congregation). Before Diaconate or Profession, they also make such a declaration.

 

Please read the PRO’s note… JPL-reply2 below.

Fr. Sajo Padayatty

PRO, Faridabad

There are four attachments, which we will respond to in a day or two.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here's our reply, sent today.  Please feel free to send your comments to us - or even direct to the "Faridabad Diocese" - email given above.

Our responses are in blue.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Fr Sajo Padayatty

Good to know you are back after your enlightening pronouncements in The Hindu on "OBC Latins".

Your Eparchy seems to be continuing full blast with its diversions and doublespeak. 

Even though at first glance it does not appear worthwhile to argue with a completely un-pastoral Eparchy, whose attitude is clearly ‘My way or the highway’, here are some responses to your email:

What happens with those Syro-Malabar faithful wishing to practice their faith in the Latin rite? Archbishop Anil and Archbishop Kuriakose explain in an intervciew in Malayala Manorama (Delhi edition)

          (When did you begin to represent Arcbishop Anil Couto???) 

          Characteristically, you start with an incorrect statement. The Eparch of Faridabad and the Archbishop of Delhi did not give "an interview" in Malayala Manorama (MM) - they gave separate interviews and said different things. The two interviews were a study in sharp contrast with regard to what the Church expects from its Shepherds - pastoral compassion, clearly visible in the position taken by the Archbishop of Delhi and conspicuously absent in the attitude demonstrated by the Eparch.

1. They are absolutely free to choose a rite, other than the one they inherited from their ancestors. But once they choose for one, be stable and stay there. Don’t put the feet in two boats.   

          Actually, we don't need to choose anything at all. As you yourself admit, we have already “inherited” our Rite, As we have expressed dozens of times, we do not intend to change it merely to please an authoritarian SM hierarchy. Indeed the latter is canonically forbidden from "inducing" us - by bluff or threat - to change it (Please read Canon 31 carefully).   

          Re the "putting the feet in two boats" metaphor, you do not seem to have studied our Fact Sheet Laity4Unity, in which we explained through a diagram how this is indeed possible. However, let us explain. The SM church is a teeny, tiny fraction of the size of the Latin Church. Rather than liken the Latin Church to a boat, as you wish to do, let us more accurately liken it to a giant ship. This ship can carry within it not only all the Catholics of the world but also the minuscule micro-boat that is the SM church. So anyone with feet inside the large ship can easily put their feet simultaneously in the tiny boat inside it, unless the tiny boat is too tiny to fit their feet.

Compare also the Nicene Creed: “I believe in One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.” Note: one church, not two boats.  Your advice, while well meant, is irrelevant.

2.     Those who wish to give up their ancestral rite, if they want to do so definitively, may please follow the canonical prescriptions of CCEO can. 37. 

            What exactly did you understand by Canon 37?  Here it is in full:

            Canon 37 says this - "Every enrollment in a certain Church sui iuris or transfer to another Church sui iuris should be recorded in the baptismal register of the parish where the baptism was celebrated, even, as the case may be, in a Latin parish; if this cannot be done, it is to be kept by the proper pastor in another document in the archive of the parish of the Church sui iuris of enrollment."

            The whole emphasis here is on “record”. Since your Church does not seem to have understood it, let us explain briefly. First (please read no. 1 above yet again) we have no intention of undergoing a "transfer to another Church", so the question of a new "enrolment" does not arise. Second, each of us is already enrolled in the church where we were baptized and the Canon provides this can be done "even ... in a Latin parish"!

In addition, unlike the SM Church, the canon takes a very humane view of the faithful by providing for situations "if this cannot be done".

           What is the intent of this canon? In no way is it meant to harass the faithful to satisfy the territorial ambitions of an authoritarian hierarchy. The purpose of this Canon is to ensure statistical consistency - populations should not be double-counted in two or three registers. Statistical consistency is required (a) to keep track of how the church is progressing, etc. and (b) to ensure, for example, that those availing of sacraments like Matrimony cannot get married in two churches. Don’t forget that the late St John Paul II, issued an indult in 1993 precisely in a situation like ours.  

           Statistical concerns are easily addressed. Those of us who were baptised in a Latin church run no risk of double-counting as our names have never appeared in an SM church - and, the Lord willing, we will keep it that way. Those who were baptised in an SM church are already registered in that SM parish - and once again do not run the risk of being double-counted. It is petty and vicious of the SM Church to create so much confusion, dissension and division in all the cities and (affluent) countries of the world where it goes. This essentially statistical requirement could have been sorted out through a simple sharing of registers and/or the creation of a centralised database rather than establishment of Eparchies and creation of bishoprics for several over-ambitious clergy members.

3. The Eparchy of Faridabad forces no one to join its fold against one’s will.

            No one accused the Eparchy of forcing - simply because it has no authority to do so anyway.

            What the Eparchy is accused of is trying to force - by misusing sacraments as weapons of coercion.

4.  The transfer/change of rite involves no financial implication.

            Once again, the Eparchy is "inducing" us to change the rite by trying to “make it sweet” even though we have said over and over again we do not wish to change our rite. Once again you are in contravention of Canon 31 (see 1 above).

5.     Don’t blame the Pope for creating the new Eparchy. Remember the canonical principle prima sedes a nemine iudicatur. 

            (We are shocked - the SM church is now using Latin - i.e. “The principal see (i.e. Rome) is judged by no one”!!! Are you not ignoring your own advice of putting your feet in two boats? Why isn't this quote in Syriac?!!!)

            Anyway, the one who put the blame on the Pope was the Eparch of Faridabad. Earlier, when he met us, he said, the Vatican has decided, I can't do anything about it. Now, he reiterates the same position in his MM interview.

Our position is precisely what we said in our earlier communication: don’t blame the Pope. The entire blame rests squarely with the SM Church, who consciously and deliberately presented false facts and figures to the Pope, in the hallowed tradition of the discredited Padiyara Report of 1980. 

6.      The Eparchy of Faridabad – and also Archdiocese of Delhi - will welcome any instructions of the Holy See in this regard.

            (Again you are acting as the spokesperson of the Archdiocese of Delhi!)

            May the Lord be praised! Not that the Eparchy will have any option in this, of course - but we do appreciate its public declaration of (selective) obedience to the Holy See. If the Eparchy of Faridabad stands by this statement, it will demonstrate a complete and welcome contrast to the behaviour of its predecessor Eparchy in Kalyan. When the Kalyan Indult was issued in Mumbai in 1993, the Eparch there took it in extremely bad spirit. (He had already tried to stop the faithful from meeting the Papal emissary to Mumbai by getting his henchmen to muscle away the faithful who went to the airport to receive the emissary.) So the Indult hit him like a lightning bolt. He first denied there was an Indult. Then when the press hounded him, he deliberately misinterpreted to them the meaning of the Indult. Unfortunately for him, the laity referred it back to the Holy See, who issued an official clarification that completely and explicitly refuted Bishop Chitilapilly. The shock was so much that the SM church kept quiet for 20 years – and waited for a new Pope - before trying the same game in Delhi.

7.     The norms of JPL bind also the religious, priests and seminarians of SM origin, when definitively decide to practice Latin rite (by joining a Latin Diocese or Congregation). Before Diaconate or Profession, they also make such a declaration. 

         Here is an example of how the Eparchy deliberately misleads the faithful. SM priests "practise" the Latin rite while continuing to "belong" to the SM rite, under cover of the so- called bi-ritual rights. This is exactly what the laity here and everywhere outside Kerala have been demanding. They wish to "practise" any rite of their choice while "belonging" to the SM rite. And this is what the Eparchy is trying to deny us. How can there be a canonical double standard? If this is possible for the religious and the clergy, there cannot be a canonical or a Christ-linked reason why this simple principle cannot be applied for the 99% of the body of the Church, the Laity!

Please read the PRO’s note… JPL-reply2 below.

We certainly will - and we will respond in like manner. 

Team Rite