Respected
Archbishop, Mar Perumthottam,
In the General Body Meeting of the St. Mary’s Forane Church, held on
26.04.2015, Mr. Augustine Paul Alancherry and Mr. Joy Ponnattil were elected to
serve as Auditors along with two other past auditors. On Monday, 8th June,
our vicar, Fr. Cyriac Kottayil, called us to his chamber and read out a juridic
act from you intimating that the newly elected auditors, Mr. Augustine Paul
Alancherry and Mr. Joy Ponnattil were unacceptable to the archdiocese and as
such their election as auditors was nullified.
‘The
extraordinary situation prevailing in Athirampuzha’ was the assigned reason for
this strange decision. We have met you on 21st June,
during your visit, to deliberate on this matter. Instead
of listening to us, you have been pontificating on the importance keeping
peace, love and harmony in the parish quoting Bible verses. The
ideal verses should have been the cleansing of the temple, where Christ drove
out everyone who made the temple unholy, calling them a ‘den of thieves’. Instead of being seen decisively on the side
of the righteous, you seem to be resolute in protecting the corrupted.
During
our meeting, you were insisting that you were well within your right to
countermand elections. A person in your
position should have more knowledge on the civil rights enjoyed by the citizen
in a democratic country. It is a well settled law that a decision
of the general body cannot be countermanded unless the person elected has
‘disqualified himself’ or ‘not elected as per the provisions of law’. Fr. Cyriac Kottayil, the presiding officer of the general
body meeting, has declared during the general body meeting that the elected
persons were of good standing and the elections were legally held. If
the archbishop can chose the officers of the church freely, the general body
need not function at all.
RSA
662/2003 reported in (2012) 51.KLR.277, it is decided that the temporal goods
belonging to a parish, does not belong to the diocese. The Church and its
properties would not vest in the Pope or the Archbishop even in accordance with
Canon Law, but belongs to the faithful living in the parish. Canon Law can have theological or ecclesiastical
implication to the parties, but such personal law cannot have any legal impact
and cannot override the civil law of the land. It is, therefore,
quite obvious that the church and its properties shall be administered by the
representatives of the pothuyogam and they need no confirmation from the
archdiocese.
Even
as per Canon Law, the competent authority cannot refuse confirmation. Canon 960 of CCEC says, “The competent authority cannot
deny confirmation if the person elected is qualified according to the norm of
law and the election was conducted in accordance with the law”. Election,
confirmation or rejection needs to be intimated in writing as per Canon 957.
The parishioners too must be apprised of your decision. Otherwise, the elected
are free to take over their official position.
By reversing the voice of the parishioners, you have insulted the
Pothuyogam, cast aspersions on the good reputation of the elected and vilified their
character. You have abdicated your
responsibility as a leader and showed scant regard to the sentiment of the
parishioners Instead of showing leadership, you have sided with the previous
vicar who allegedly made immoral crores
off gullible believers with no fig leaf of accountability and without any
established principles You are also guilty of
protecting the past administrators who spearheaded the destructive activities done in the church.
Character
assassination is specifically prohibited by Canon 23, which says, “no one is
permitted to damage unlawfully the good reputation, which another person enjoys
or to violate the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy”. Canon
935 is also pertinent here, which says, “Anyone who unlawfully inflicts damage
upon someone by a juridic act, or indeed by any other act placed with malice or
culpability, is obliged to compensate for the damage inflicted”.
The ire against us may be because of the uncomfortable questions asked by
the pothuyogam on the account statement submitted by the church. The vicar announced an amount of 1.07 crores as
income from ‘Perunnal’, but only 73 lakhs is shown in the account statement.
The recently completed ‘Thirthadana Bhavanam’ is renovated again spending 30
lakhs. Kavukattu Bhavanam, which is already rented out, took another 20 lakhs.
The church spent a whopping amount of 37 lakhs to pay interest. Archdiocese is
paid 35 lakhs, when no money need be paid by a church in debt. As per the accounting practices suspense
account should be ‘0’, at the time of reporting, but we have 9 lakhs in
suspense. Financial prudence is nowhere in sight for a church in debt as 60
lakhs were spent on maintenance and 7 lakhs buying furniture. There is mismanagement or negligence which costs the
church more than 1 crore this accounting year also. The
church, with an annual income of more than 4.5 cores, spent only Rs.73000/-
towards social / community care projects.
You foster distress in the community by assaulting on the authority of
the pothuyogam in the name of values, such as love, peace and harmony. This
unmistakable Christian rhetoric is totally divisive in the present context as
the nefarious activities of the previous regime affect the entire archdiocese. It appears that no values or convention are sacred
in the governance of the church, barring the one rule of honour among thieves.
Destroying
dissent is an autistic tendency and you and your types can become relics with
no church to govern and no believers to follow your toe-line in the
not-so-distant future. Your preoccupation with
silence can make you fade
into irrelevance. The SM church may require a
‘Wailing Wall’ for the victims you created.
We are aware of the perils that confront the righteous, particularly when
the intended entity is mighty and powerful. If the Archdiocese neglects to act
constructively in this case, the suspicion that it too has plenty to suppress
will strengthen. Your position as a fair and impartial adjudicator becomes dubious
and issues can reverberate into the past with further bigger reverses.
However, regardless of the scandal, regardless of the public fury,
nothing in the church has changed. There appears to be no option since each
person, who can make a difference, is on the same side. We would, therefore, urge the archdiocese to abandon
such intimidating actions. You are using ‘non-existent’ power to remove
auditors and your overreach can only be condemned. You cannot strip our parishioners of their
decision making powers and make them disempowered. Let no one say that the archdiocese continues to be
run by cassocks of withered will.
Our advocate says that this is an open and shut case where we will win
easily and decisively. We would advise you to get a legal opinion on the
subject immediately. The reputation of SM church is not profound at present and
we would not like to humiliate it further. We are reluctant to take the matter
to the Civil Court, since it is our last option in case your decision is not
reversed.
Respectful regards
Augustine Alancherry
(alancherry@gmail.com)
Team Conscience of Athirampuzha
Well done. This only is one example of how the property or income of the faithful is mismanaged, stolen or otherwise damaged by the clergy who is obedient neither to the law of the land nor to their own conscience. If they have no conscience, which is probably the case, it is the duty of the believers - the citizens of the church - to see that they develop one or to do everything to throw them out of the church. The people are the church, not the insignificant minority called the clergy. This is the teaching of the churchsince its beginning and the proclaimed will of its present pontiff, pope Francis.
ReplyDelete