Syro Malabar Issue – No response after First Steps in Dialogue

Syro Malabar faithful of Delhi Catholic Archdiocese

Coordinating Group: C/o AFPRO 25/1A Institutional Area,

Pankha Road, D-Block Janakpuri, New Delhi 110058

Email: riteissuencr@gmail.com  Fax: +91-11-28520343

To The Archbishop Salvatore Pennacchio

Apostolic Nuncio, New Delhi

Your Excellency,                           Rite Issue's profile photo
It is a matter of utter dismay and disappointment that our email of 3 August to you remains un-replied even now.
It appears that the serious problems the faithful face are of little consequence to the Church here, in sharp contrast to the way the Holy Father would have approached this issue.
Your Excellency had been insisting on a meeting of "the committee". In spite of our doubts and reservations about the nature, meaning and purpose of such a "committee", in the spirit of dialogue we did have a serious discussion with the Syro-Malabar representatives, with whom we were suddenly confronted without prior notice.
Our email of 3 August faithfully reported to you how that meeting went. We now await your urgent intervention to bring this matter, which the Syro Malabar Church insists was initiated under your "guidance".

Yours in Our Lord,

Laity4Unity, formerly Team Rite

(names listed in the Signature space below)

 
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Rite Issue <riteissuencr@gmail.com>wrote:

 

 

Syro Malabar faithful of Delhi Catholic Archdiocese

Coordinating Group: C/o AFPRO 25/1A Institutional Area,

Pankha Road, D-Block Janakpuri, New Delhi 110058

Email: riteissuencr@gmail.com  Fax: +91-11-28520343

To HE Archbishop Salvatore Pennacchio

Apostolic Nuncio, New Delhi

Your Excellency,

1. We have still not received a response to our emails of 31 March or 26 June 2015.

The relevance of an ad hoc Committee for infrastructure sharing.

2. In our meeting with Your Excellency on 23 June 2014, Your Excellency had made some non-specific references to a “committee” of five members from “each side” to discuss the issue. On enquiring with the Archbishop of Delhi we learnt that there had only been an “ad hoc committee”, set up in his predecessor’s time, apparently to discuss sharing of infrastructure between the Latin Archdiocese and the Syro-Malabar Eparchy. Since that issue had already been long settled, we pointed out to you in our above emails that we were unable to understand what role an ad hoc committee for infrastructure could play in the settlement of the current problem of Rites. As far as we can see, the only parties to discuss this are: ourselves as the affected party; the two concerned bishops; and Your Excellency. No other entity – and certainly no lay person who fails to understand why we are aggrieved – would appear to have any locus standi in this matter. While therefore welcoming the idea of any means of effective dialogue:

(a) we understand that the new names suggested by the Archbishop of Delhi to present our case have not yet been formally approved by you; and

(b) in spite of our requests, Your Excellency has not laid down specific terms of reference for any such new “committee”.

Meeting with the Eparch

3. Three of the undersigned nine Petitioners to the Holy Father, who in turn represent thousands of aggrieved Catholics of Syro Malabar (SM) ancestry in Delhi-NCR and other states now said to be in the “territory” of the Faridabad Eparchy, attended a meeting at Archbishop’s House Gole Dakkhana on Monday 27 July 2015. We had been informed that this was an “ad hoc meeting”, which would be attended by only the Archbishop of Delhi, his Vicar General and his Chancellor. When we reached the venue, however, we discovered that the Eparch of Faridabad, his Vicar General (VG), His Chancellor, a nun and two lay people were also present. [Throughout this letter, we will be using the titles Eparch (of Faridabad) and Archbishop (of Delhi) merely for convenient distinction.]

The Status of the Participants

4. At the start of the meeting, which, at the Archbishop’s invitation, was chaired by the Eparch, the latter formally stated that this was a meeting of the “Ad hoc Inter-Ritual Committee”. We responded immediately that we had not been aware that there was such a forum and had not been informed that this was the agenda. We elaborated our position as explained in Para 2 above. The Archbishop too confirmed that our names had not yet been formally approved by Your Excellency. Also, while we could understand the presence of the VG and the Chancellor of Faridabad (to assist the Eparch), we were unable to understand what roles, if any, could be played by the other three members of the Syro Malabar team. Having openly stated this position, however, we agreed to participate in the discussions, emphasizing that we were only three members out of the nine Petitioners, who in turn were representing thousands of the faithful, and that our participation was to indicate our good will and our appreciation for the commencement of dialogue.

Our Appreciation for the Chair

5. Right at the outset we must state our appreciation for the several positive suggestions emanating from Eparch Kuriakose. In fact, had he had his way, the meeting would have closed quickly with practical solutions. In sharp contrast, we were taken aback at the way in which on several occasions the VG of the Faridabad Eparchy seemed to counter and virtually veto the suggestions made by his own Archbishop. The VG’s frequent interventions during the discussion clearly indicated that: (a) he did not agree with his own Eparch’s views; and (b) more significantly, he doubted if the Eparch’s views would be accepted by the Syro Malabar Synod. [At one point we were compelled to ask him whether he felt that the Synod had no confidence in their own representative in Delhi.]  As a result the dialogue was far less fruitful than it could have been.

Possible Convergence notwithstanding Limitations

6. Subject to all the limitations mentioned at 2, 3 and 4 above, and subject also to the entirety of our original Petition to the Holy Father, the following suggestions initiated or inspired by the Eparch appear workable as first steps towards reconciliation, with some reservations; although of course, we will need to consult the thousands of people that we represent:

a) The Eparch and the Archbishop agreed to recommend strongly to the Holy Father that all those of SM ancestry resident in the Archdiocese of Delhi should be permitted to avail of all sacraments including Baptism and Matrimony in the Latin Church. This is what the Kalyan Indult had stated in essence. Yet the VG (rather than the Eparch) kept insisting that each family would have to make an individual application in each case (though there is no such provision in the Kalyan Indult). We mentioned that this procedure has already been overwhelmingly and publicly rejected by those we represent.

b) However, there could well be an acceptable solution, although this would have to be endorsed by our supporters. The (Latin) Parish Priests of the Delhi Archdiocese already have records of SM families in their parishes (most of whom have been in these parishes for decades), and these can be updated with relative ease. These Parish Priests can duly record every case of the SM faithful wishing to avail of the Sacraments of Baptism and Matrimony. If the Eparchy requires these details, the Latin Parish Priests can, as a general routine,  forward them on to the Eparchy through the proper channel, which we understand is the Chancery of the Archdiocese of Delhi. Thus the major irritants (intolerable officiousness, unnecessary wastage of time, unwelcome homilies and occasional harassment) involved in making an individual application for each person for each sacrament can all be removed. All legitimate statistical and technical needs of the Eparchy will still be met, while the faithful – in many cases with both spouses in the work force – struggle to cope with the busy life of a metropolis.

c) The Eparch and the Archbishop kindly agreed to record – rather than recommend – our unequivocal reiteration that this principle should apply to all Delhi-NCR residents of SM ancestry, present and future. Given the high rate of inter-city transfers, location and re-location that take place in modern-day jobs and careers, we do not want our brothers and sisters moving into Delhi-NCR to undergo the same agonies that we have undergone. It may be noted that this is a minimum pre-condition from our side, as this is one of the obvious, unintended lacunae in the Kalyan Indult. We also made it amply clear in the meeting that what we wanted was not a limited Indult but a rolling back of the entire JPL and its effects.

d) It was noted that the Kalyan Indult indeed permitted the reception of all sacraments, including Baptism and Matrimony, to Mumbai-Nashik residents of SM ancestry in a Latin rite parish. The last five words, however, as the Eparch himself helpfully pointed out, could be misunderstood as restrictive, seeming incongruous with the meaning and intent of the whole Indult. Clearly, if the faithful were going to be permitted to receive these sacraments in their local Latin parish, there would seem no logical reason to simultaneously deny the very same people the same sacraments in an SM parish anywhere in the world. He therefore agreed during the meeting to recommend correction of this lacuna too. However, this was inadvertently left out in his final summing up (which was done in some haste because of the considerable time that the meeting had taken). We insist that this lacuna too must be corrected: reception of all sacraments for these people must be permitted in SM churches in Kerala too, for those who wish to celebrate the occasion with their grandparents and relatives there.

7. Your Excellency, our brothers and sisters in Mumbai struggled for five whole years to see the birth of the Kalyan Indult. Several of us have spent innumerable hours and personal finances to take up what we consider an important cause in the Church. We are prepared to struggle for as long as it takes to ensure that the principles of Kalyan are made universally applicable in perpetuity, starting with Delhi. In this context, it would be completely infructuous to suggest the above changes in Delhi or elsewhere unless they are absolutely binding on the Syro Malabar Church Synod

8. While there is much specious argument on Mother Church’s concern about nurturing the diversity of constituent churches, it is clear that such nurturing can never be intended as a cause of division in the universal Church. In any case, by their very nature, love and respect for any church can never be nurtured through force or “no choice”. Our Petition to the Holy Father, in its emphasis on one Holy and universal church without bureaucratic barriers between constituents, thus remains un-diluted in essence.  

9. Such barriers and man-made divisions must never again raise their ugly head anywhere in the world. This public affirmation of Unity rather than division will be the best gift and legacy which we can pass on to our children and grandchildren, who around the world are increasingly feeling alienated from the Church. With these generations showing extreme reluctance to visit any church at all, and perceiving all these bureaucratic divisions between churches as ”scandalous”, to use the Holy Father’s phrase, it would be highly short-sighted and self-defeating to insist that they should sign up for membership in one – and not another – Church in the Catholic communion.

10. We look forward to continuing this dialogue in the spirit that the Eparch and the Archbishop displayed in the above meeting.

Yours in Our Lord,

Laity4Unity, formerly Team Rite

(names listed in the Signature space below)

Laity4Unity, formerly known as Team Rite
"That they may all be one" [Jn 17:21]

 

Ajit Pudussery, Antony PJ, Catherine Mathai, DK Manavalan, Francis Kuruvilla
Joan Antony, Kurien Joseph, Rajan George, Sabu Thomas
Coordinating Group of the Syro Malabar Catholics of Delhi Catholic Archdiocese, India
C/o AFPRO 25/1A Institutional Area,
Pankha Road, D-Block Janakpuri, New Delhi 110058 India
Facebook: Rite Issue   Fax: +91-11-28520343

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. almayasabdam says:

     

    First of all let us stop for ever this silly use of Your Excellency in addressing the prelates. Even the Pope insists on avoiding such surrealistic, bombastic words. Those whom we address are just human being like us and a simple you is sufficient to talk to them. We, as well as they, know they are not Excellencies  or Beatitudes, and from their manner of acting, not even any more eminent in any sense than we ourselves. So let us keep to our sense of equality. We, editors of CCV, have already started putting it into practice.

    The content of the letter is a cry in the desert. It sounds like the children of a family begging for their rights before the servants, who were once appointed to look after the needs of the very children. It is a shame on the entire church that such a development has taken place. And all the begging is not going to make any changes in the situation, which is a creation by the arrogant and authoritarian stand of the very people who deserve to be ousted from the premises of the Family called the Church, regardless of their externals and honorary titles. Zacharias Nedunkanal, asso. editor, CCV.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.