Mr Chacko Kalarickal makes two main
points:
1)
That
the Bishop/Archbishop matter is a triviality, on which we need not spend time. He
says, if the Pope gave the Eparch this particular title, “I believe the
Archbishop. I don’t need any documentation.” Fair
enough!
2)
That
Eparch Kuriakose is “one of the best bishops in SM hierarchy: and has “understood
the Rite issue in Delhi and he is trying his level best to rectify the
situation to help the church citizens”. Sorry,
to us either one or both parts of this statement
are wrong.
As the Petitioners to
the Holy Father, we cannot let these two statements pass without
clarifications.
1)
That
Bishop Kuriakose was given the honorary title of “Archbishop” has not been
questioned and is not at issue. But when
the official fund-collecting event of the SM Eparchy carries his name as “Archbishop of Delhi-Faridabad Eparchy”, that is certainly objectionable. It is not just objectionable in itself but gets
unbearable when it reflects a consistent
pattern in
everything that this SM church does. The
name “Faridabad” was given clearly to distinguish it from “Delhi”. It is
incorrect, if not unethical, for the Eparchy to pretend to being something that
it is not. More than that, however, it seems to behave as though it is somehow superior. For example, in the matter of change or rite (for those very few
people who wish to do so), canon laws say both
bishops have to agree. But Eparch Kuriakose appropriates to himself a
non-existent “right” to “apprise” the far senior Archbishop of Delhi of “the
appropriate course of action”. He is self-admittedly a newcomer to the North of
India, its culture and the culture of Kerala immigrants here. What is resented here is the sheer authoritarianism that he and his Eparchy exude in all their actions and sayings.
2)
Mr
Kalarickal is of course entitled to his opinion that the Eparch is “one of the
best bishops in the SM hierarchy”. We are sure he has good reasons for thinking
so and there is nothing to dispute there. But this is not quite the impression he has made here in Delhi. In fact, if he is indeed “one of the
best”, it scares us to imagine what the rest might be like!
Much
more importantly, however, we would disagree strongly with your next statement. You see, here’s the contradiction: If he has indeed
“understood the Rite issue in Delhi”, then he is really responsible for the entire mess here – the viciously bureaucratic and un-pastoral
lack of concern for the immigrants
and their families.
Frankly,
it would be more
charitable to
believe that he has NOT “understood the Rite issue in Delhi”, because he is
certainly not – as Mr Kalarickal seems to believe – in any way “trying his
level best to rectify the situation”. Actually the
situation can be rectified overnight; that it is not is due to pure stubborn
bureaucracy. Nothing
stops the church – and both the bishops – from delegating powers to administer
Baptism and Matrimony to ALL parish priests, both Latin and
Syrian. The ten Petitioners personally had a full discussion with him in front
of our Archbishop – and that is where our opinion of him went down: it was not the people he cared for, nor the universal church; his entire
and exclusive concern was about the SM institutional Church’s – and his own – display of
“authority”.
He insisted that we must go to an SM priest,
even though we have explained (a) we have been nourished by our Latin
archdiocese for decades, (b) we do not know the so-called SM “parish
priest” and (c) we do not need one or have asked for
one.
Incidentally,
before you say that these are “church rules”, we have written enough (and have
no desire to repeat everything) to establish that that is simply
not true; on the
contrary it goes completely against the spirit of Church laws.
We reiterate that it is
clear by now that this Eparchy was established on blatantly
false premises (the need,
the numbers, the people’s desire, the Latin archdiocese’s “failure”, etc.).
Perhaps Eparch Kuriakose inherited a bad situation, but nobody here believes he
has covered himself in glory in dealing with that situation!
Team Rite, New Delhi
It looks like a mature evaluation of the situation and the crucial points mentioned. The newly popped up supporters of bishop K. Bharanikulangara should find it difficult to come up with a proper defense of their stand expressed heretofore. .
ReplyDeleteIf there was a demand for a Syro Malabar diocese in Delhi from a section of the faithful, let them join the new diocese. Leave the rest to their choice. Obviously the Church laws were created not for the benefit of the faithful rather to preserve and protect the power and interest of the clergy.
ReplyDeleteWe do have several reform movements. Unfortunately each one of them are fighting against their own local issues. We need to make genuine and concerted effort to bring all these movemens in to a common platform. One issue we all need to join hands is the passage of the Church Act. Once Church Act becomes the