From
Sr.Lucy
Kalapura
F C
Convent
Karakkamala
(P O)
Mananthavady,Wayanad
Dist.
Kerala,India,
670645.
To
HIS
EMINENCE DOMINIQUE
FRANCOIS
JOSEPH NAMBERTI
SIGNATURA
APOSTOLICA
PALAZZO
DELLA CONCELLERIA
PIAZZA
DELLA CANCELLERIA 1
00186
ROMA
Subject:
Seeking of Hierarchical Recourse against the
Decree of Rejection from the Congregation For The
Oriental Churches
Ref:
1. Prot N.3037 by Apostolic Nuncio dated 11.10.2019
2. Prot N. 93/2002 by Congregation for the Oriental
Churches
3.Un authentic English translation of the Decree of
Rejection in Latin given by Superior General of FCC Aluva 22.10.2019
Your Eminence,
I. Preliminary submissions
It
is submitted, as an overarching principle, that my calling as a member of the
Franciscan Clarist Congregation (FCC), and the discipline immanent therein must
be deemed as harmonious with my rights and liberties as a human being for the
reason that one cannot be a Catholic or a nun without being human. Secondly, it
is pleaded that they may also be read, interpreted and applied to my case, as
harmonious with my fundamental rights as an Indian citizen as provided for in
the Constitution of India. Fundamental rights –that include the right to
freedom of movement, freedom of conscience and right to equality of treatment
and not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender as well as the right
to life with dignity are inalienable. No law enunciated by any authority shall
prevail in contravention to fundamental rights for the reason that they are
inalienable. In law, they cannot even be renounced permanently by the
individual.
It
is further urged that the Kerala society is undergoing an unprecedented
churning. In part this is due to growing public awareness. In part this is also
due to the growing disenchantment with religion, often associated with
irrationality, regressive advocacies, and obscurantism. A series of major
scandals, including sex and land mafia deals involving church authorities have
rocked Kerala in the recent past. In such a context, I do feel, as one
committed firmly to the way of Jesus Christ, to play a proactive role, rather
than avail myself of the easier option to live ‘peacefully’ behind the curtains
of escapism, like the Priest and the Levite in the parable of the Good
Samaritan. An impartial and contextually sensitive view of the ill-conceived
action initiated against me, bypassing the requirements of natural justice,
will convince anyone that old assumptions and posturing will not meet the needs
of the present. It is this that has challenged me to respond to my situation as
I have in the last couple of years. I hope very fervently that the following
submissions I make would be seen and appreciated in this light.
I
make bold to hint the aforesaid for the reason that at a distance this context
is unlikely to be either noted or reckoned aright. It is a basic dictum in
interpretation that everything, to be judged aright, be seen in its context.
This is all the more critical in the present instance as the action against me
flows directly out of the murky and embarrassing situation that prevails. It
doesn’t have to be emphasized that far too often in history that defensive
measures that desirable in the short-term prove harmful in the long-term. This
comes about from ignoring the specifics of the given context.
I
submit therefore that a final decision on my case be undertaken after a
commission to study the underlying issues is formed and its report studied in
relation to the submissions I make. Anything less, is sure to fall far short of
the bottom-line requirements of justice.
Above
all, I have to point out that in considering my case by F C C, only rules and
regulations have been cited against me. There is not a single reference in this
long and detailed document to any biblical principle that I could be alleged to
have violated. If I have not incurred any spiritual indiscipline, instead have
acted in consonance with my Christian calling, it is most unfortunate that
extreme punishment, comparable to capital punishment in the secular context, is
sought to be imposed on me. The question that comes up is this: is it possible
for one to be a nun and a follower of Jesus Christ at the same time? The
concerned authorities will be answering this question one way or another in the
way my appeal is dealt with.
II. Specific submissions
Para
1.
It is respectfully submitted that there is a
distinction between measures meant to uphold and maintain discipline and those
meant to target a member of the Congregation. The latter applies to my case,
which is evident from the fact that the charges leveled against me varied from
time to time and newer charges as after thoughts were heaped against me. What
makes this process strikingly mala fide is that discipline is selectively and
arbitrarily imposed on me. Surely, there are nuns and priests in the Catholic
Church, for example, who own and drive cars, interact with the media. Nothing
in my vocation as a nun of the Franciscan Clarist Congregation prevents me from
expressing my God-given gift of creative writing, given that Jesus himself was
the sanctified embodiment of creativity.
It is reiterated, with utmost clarity of conscience and with God as my witness
that I have remained, till date, unwaveringly committed to the vows of poverty,
chastity and obedience. It is submitted, at the same time, that obedience to
such laws as are in force in the Congregation needs to harmonize with my duty
to obey God most of all, especially in matters that pertain to the right of the
oppressed and the violated for justice, without which no spiritual vocation can
be imagined or sustained.
Para
2.
Procedural
improprieties abound in the punitive action initiated against me. I am
aggrieved that none of my explanations/submissions has been given the attention
or consideration they deserved and my explanations have been treated with
prejudice, as though the punitive decision against was pre-determined and the
mere process of providing me an opportunity to state my case gone through
without any intent to give my views any regard. This process of going through
with the notion of serving a show cause notice and inviting my explanation has
been conducted as a mere formality, without any intention to hear me or to
treat me fairly, which smacks of, sad to say, bias and vindictiveness. It is strongly
urged that the Provincial General, who initiated this procedure and
disciplinary action against me is vitiated by bias, given her proximity and
abject loyalty to Bishop Franco Mulakkal. This disqualifies her to be the
disciplining authority, as justice and partisanship are incompatible. As a
result, a miscarriage of justice was writ large over the entire process to
which I have been subjected in this case, as is widely known in Kerala.
Para
3.
(a)
It is not denied that I have interacted with non-Catholics. Insistence that a
nun should limit her contacts or cooperation to Catholics alone is, in my
Christian conscience, tantamount to practicing untouchability which is an
offence both against the biblical faith and the Indian Constitution.
(b)
It is admitted that I have published poems. I did apply to the Province for
permission, which was denied to me without any valid reasons. The Province
should have had the magnanimity to encourage the development of a God-given
gift and not suppressed it in the name of ‘discipline’. It is submitted that
there have been outstanding poets, scientists, thinkers and artists among the
Catholic religious. The notion that creativity is sinful is alien to the
Catholic vision. So, the suppression of this gift in me seems to me to be only
a sign of hostility and prejudice, submitting to which is slavery, not
obedience. I insist that I am not guilty of disobedience in this or any other
respect.
(c)
As regards my income through salaries, it is submitted that every rupee of it
used to be deposited with the Province till the end of 2017. Thereafter a
change was thrust upon me, when my application for permission (this
is my first request for 10000
rupees in 33 years of religious life) to help a near
relative of mine, who was in dire need, was made in writing by me to the
Province. My application was kept pending, without consideration, for months.
Unable to brook the delay without causing serious harm to my relative in
distress, I decided to extend financial support. I needed money, again, to pay
for my driving license fee. My application in this regard was rejected arbitrarily.
There are several nuns who have driving licenses, but none of them has been
acted against. I sought permission also to buy a small car, which was envisaged
not as a personal facility but as open to other members of the Convent also to
use. This being, and finding this facility a bare necessity, given my
professional work as a teacher and other circumstances, I had to meet the cost
out of my salary. Support from the Province for this purpose was sure to be
withheld. I was thus coerced to deviate from my customary practice of letting the
Province have my income in toto. It is submitted that I am willing hereon to
let the Province have my salary.
(d)
The decision of the Province that I should not have a driving license was
blatantly arbitrary, as I know several nuns with driving licenses.
Arbitrariness of treatment, vitiated by personal animosity, is not
‘disciplinary action’. It is unbecoming of an institution or authority that
bears the title ‘Christian’. Disciplinary action needs to be taken against such
authorities and individuals. Not reinforcing arbitrariness is, on the other
hand, basic to discipline. I have been true to my discipline as a religious in
this aspect as well.
(e)
Regarding the avoidable controversy
about ‘habit and veil’, I have to submit that cloth cannot be more important
than character or health. It is spiritually superfluous to be obsessed with
‘what we shall wear’ –as Jesus said- to the detriment of the body. Cotton is,
without an argument, more appropriate to the humid climate of Kerala. At any
rate synthetic material is allergic to me. It is disappointing that a big issue
is made out of this. This makes me worry that ‘habit and veil’ is made to
symbolize the subjugation of a nun, than serve as a spiritual aid to the person
concerned. As the tragedies of several nuns in Kerala in the recent past prove,
habit and veil do not protect them from extreme peril even within the convent.
Para
4.
As
regards the various provisions cited in this paragraph, I have to submit that
rules and regulations –like religion itself, as Jesus said- are made for human
beings, not vice versa. The spiritual mission of Jesus Christ involved the supersession
of many laws which were considered sacrosanct by the Jews. If and when rules,
formulated in the past, are found to be inimical to the spiritual welfare of
believers and the religious, the right thing to do is to review them with the
guiding light provided by Jesus himself, “The Sabbath is made for man, not man
for the Sabbath.” Jesus too faced the ire of the Jews for not complying with
rules. The simple fact remains, humanity progresses not by holding on to
archaic rules and regulations, but by honouring the freedom of the spirit and
personal liberty as given and guaranteed by the Lord Jesus Christ. Also, it is
common knowledge that rules and regulations are mere tools. Much depends on
with what purpose they are wielded. It is obvious that in my case they are
being invoked as means for justifying a decision taken quite apart from them.
They are invoked only for purposes of creating a semblance of legitimacy.
Christianity is not a religion of rules, but of grace. It is the spirit, not
the letter of the law that should govern. If this bottom-line spiritual
sensitivity was practised in my case, I would not have had to defend myself for
upholding my faith as I have to in the present case.
Para
5.
It does not behoove the majesty of the
appellate authority to condemn me for dishonouring polyester and preferring
cotton, instead; and that too for health grounds! This is illustrative of the
grievance-hunting attitude that dealt with my appeal in the first place. In
doing so, the appellate body and the authority against whose action I have
appealed are proved to be one in mind. It is not surprising, therefore, that
justice has not been done to me; the reason why this further appeal is
preferred.
Para
6.
It
is submitted that I have not arrogated to myself to interpret rules
arbitrarily. The only stable point in an ever-changing world is the Word of
God. No rule or law that militates against the essence of the Word should stand
or be deemed binding on a nun or a lay person. Whenever a church deemed its
rubrics of rules to be sovereign and superior to the Bible, it has erred from
the path of righteousness. My spiritual vocation as a nun does not entail that
I give up the right to have a Christian conscience. Jesus has made it amply
clear that no system in the world is given the right to suppress the spiritual
integrity or freedom of a human being. The message of the Cross is that there
should be no compromise on this core principle. I have done no more than caring
to be faithful to the role-model of the Lord Jesus Christ to whom I am bound,
by my vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, to be loyal. My vows bind me to
obey Jesus Christ, whose bride I am. I have never been told to be unfaithful in
this regard and so have conducted myself accordingly.
Para
7.
I do not maintain that I am not obliged to
obey my superiors in the order. But I wish to submit and urge that obedience is
a well-defined concept; especially in the spiritual context, where it is
clearly distinguished from slavery. “Obedience to God is perfect freedom”, we
believe. If so, the litmus test of true obedience is whether or not it makes
one free spiritually. If obedience is invoked to suppress the soul of
individuals and curb their legitimate freedom or personal dignity, it is an
abuse of the idea of obedience. Those who indulge in this abuse, and not those
who refuse to be complicit in it, are guilty of violating the vow of obedience.
I have to vehemently refute the charge of disobedience levelled against me as
false and baseless.
Para
8.
As regards the lifestyle offences alleged
against me, I have to submit that my concern is with life and not with
lifestyle. As a nun I have nothing to do with ‘style’. Writing poems, or
driving, or owning a small car, are not offences. It is puerile to allege that
these things violate the vow of poverty. Bishops, arch bishops, cardinals and
superiors of the women _ men congregations’ too are under vows of poverty. Do
they use public transport or walk to their destinations? I am not the only nun
in the Catholic Church who drives! But I am the only nun singled out for
special adverse treatment! I have to point out that a serious issue is involved
here. By imposing these unnecessary restrictions on nuns, an inferior status is
created for them. This plays a major role in keeping them helpless and
vulnerable against physical exploitation, which is happening, as Pope Francis
has pointed out. Meekness imposed on nuns is increasingly turning out to be an
arrangement hostile to their spiritual integrity and even personal safety. It
is to be noted, further, that this paranoid obsession with my lifestyle is, if
anything, a greater spiritual aberration that my request for minimal freedom to
wear clothes more conducive to my health.
Para
9.
The
misleading allegation in this instance pertains to my having allowed a young
unmarried lady journalist to stay with me overnight in the month of January
2018. I was obliged to do so both because she came late for unavoidable reasons
and it was unsafe for her to be sent out at that hour of the night. The guest
room of the Convent was found locked up at 9.30 when I checked. That this lady
visitor was with me was known to the Superior; for she inquired of me about it
at 7 pm. Given the atmosphere of hostility towards me that prevailed in the
Convent, everyone else had given up normal conversations with me with effect
from the 23rd of September 2018, perhaps under instruction from the
authorities. Naturally, therefore, no one else interacted with this lady
journalist, which is reflective of the cruelly inhospitable atmosphere that
prevailed at that time. I do not regret, nor am I apologetic, for accommodating
this person with me. I am sure that St. Francis would have done no less. I was
only following the role-model of the one after whom my order is founded. It is
ironic that it is turned into a serious offence! I remembered, on that
occasion, an instance from the life of the Saint of Assisi. A thief broke into
his small house. Suspecting he was noticed and could be apprehended, he
panicked and fled from the scene. The saint pursued him, prevailed upon him to
return, and insisting on his having what he came to steal. This touched him
deeply and it led to his repenting and beginning a new life. I am sure the
Saint would have been inspired in doing this by the words of Jesus in the 25th
chapter of St. Matthew, “I was a stranger, and you received me.” Rather than
hide behind iron-curtains of impersonal rules so as to dodge the duty to
respond to human needs, Convents need to incarnate the law of love in the
service of life, if need be beyond a mechanical or bureaucratic adherence to
regulations. Anything less is sinful, no matter how assertively it is justified.
It was my inescapable duty to have given shelter to the young girl, rather than
send her out to face the perils of the night. Surely, I cannot be expected to
be apologetic about this! It is embarrassing, on the other hand, this is seen
as an offence, as the Pharisees did in their times.
While the dignity and well-being of the church
matters a great deal to me, it happens to be the case that my understanding of
its scope and substance varies from what seems to be implied by the disciplining
authority. It is hard for me to believe that keeping quiet in the face of the
alleged violation and brutal ill-treatment of a fellow nun, as in the Bishop Franco
Mulakkal case, is conducive to the dignity and well-being of the church. It is
my ardent conviction that there are
festering wounds in the body of the church; they need to be dressed and healed,
not plastered over. It is for the sake of the dignity and well-being of the
church that I have taken a stand in this issue as also in other matters.
Regrettably, my decisions and actions have been viewed prejudicially, which does
not further the dignity and well-being of the church. It is my dream that my
church would become more accommodative of the dignity and well-being of the
religious, especially of nuns. It is regrettable that the two are seen as
mutually exclusive.
Concluding section.
Over
and above the submissions made above, I plead and urge as follows. A serious
crisis stares the Catholic Church in Kerala and the various religious orders
under its ecclesial umbrella. This cannot be wished away. What needs to be done
is to approach the duties and challenges this poses with an open mind,
untrammeled by habitual imposition of outdated principles. Suppressing creative
talents and punishing those who carry this divine obligation was not acceptable
even five centuries ago. Valuing the texture of a nun’s habit, rather than the
spiritual authenticity of her vocation, to the extent of making it a
mentionable ground for expulsion from the order is sure to attract public
ridicule. Treating a nun’s ability to drive a car as satanic, or her owning a
small car, bought from her own hard-earned income, as an unpardonable sin when
priests, bishops, archbishops and cardinals own or use cars is, except to the
biased, an indefensible measure. Participating in TV discussion, entirely to
publicly affirm core Christian values, so that aberrations do not get embedded
in public consciousness in the name of the Catholic Church, needs to be
encouraged, not punished. It is certainly self-derogatory to treat cooperating
with all people, especially in the service of godly causes, as rebelliousness
or anti-Church amounts to practicing untouchability, which defames the name of
Jesus.
Freedom
of thought, action and conscience is God’s gift to humankind. Jesus came to set
the captives free. Captives are those who are denied the above. It is an
avoidable irony that the suppression of these basic human rights in the name of
the Church is not only prescribed but also imposed with extreme rigour.
Furthermore,
it is submitted earnestly that in choosing to act I am alleged to have, I have
kept the larger picture, and not my personal convenience, in mind. I do not
wish to conceal or dilute my ardent personal conviction that acting in a
short-sighted and partial manner, that hurts the cause of justice will stymie
the character of the Church in the eye of the public. It will, besides,
discourage young Catholic girls from entering religious orders; as no parent
would want to have daughters treated as arbitrarily, insensitively and
summarily as I am. It is not late, even at this late hour, to control the
damage and to remedy the situation. To that I end, I affirm my full and
wholehearted cooperation, with the sole provision that the idea of ‘discipline’
as imposed on nuns in Kerala be re-examined to make it harmonize with biblical
spirituality and bottom-line human rights norms. I am a devoted and ardent
daughter of the Church and I have the right to expect justice to be available to
me. My track-record of devoted and zealous service, in loyal adherence to the
spiritual discipline of my vocation, is my only defence and it is difficult for
me to believe that it would not count for the authorities who address this
appeal.
The
Bishop Franco Mulakkal rape case has attained unprecedented public attention.
The facts in this matter are widely known. So also the role I played in
standing with the sisters who agitated for justice to the rape victim. The
general public knows that the ‘disciplinary action’ against me is directly
related to this case, which is subjudice. In a year’s time, the judgment is
likely to be pronounced in this matter. Then we shall know if the accused
bishop is innocent or guilty.
Apropos
of the dismissal order served on me, I submit the following options to the
honourable members of the Tribunal for their kind consideration in light of the
spirituality of St. Francis of Assisi and the spiritual values of the Gospel of
Jesus Christ.
1.
The dismissal order served
on me, based on misconstrued grounds, without having due regard to the specific
contexts to the allegations made against me, may please be withdrawn and I be
allowed to continue as a member of the FCC order.
2.
Alternately, the FCC order
may please be directed to provide me with a suitable house where I may continue
to live true and faithful to my vocation for the rest of my life, without
inconveniencing the members of the convent in any way but still in spiritual
fellowship with them. The Convent may be directed additionally to provide an
adequate monthly allowance for my sustenance. This facility shall cease/revert
to the convent after my decease.
Or,
3.
Should the aforesaid
proposal under clause 2 not find favour with the Tribunal, the FCC order may
please be directed to reimburse to me my lifetimes earnings from my employment
as a teacher, all of which was given to the convent till 2018. It is only too
obvious that a nun, with her earning life nearly behind her, cannot be expected
to live in a state of destitution; her spiritual vocation and her lifetime’s
work and earnings expropriated from her. It is a cruelty that the FCC order can
avoid to inflict on anyone.
It
is emphasized that of the three possibilities stated above, my absolute
preference is for the first, as my calling as a nun in the Franciscan order is
the most deeply cherished aspect of my life and destiny.
With fidelity
(sigd.)
Sr.Lucy Kalapura, 04.11.2019
Copy
to send:
1.Congregation
for the Oriental Churches
2.Apostolic
Nuncio
3.Superior
General of FCC
4.Provincial
Superior Mananthavady
5.Cardinal
George Alancherry
6.Bishop
of Mananthavady
7.C
I Vellamunda
No comments:
Post a Comment