Understanding the Rome “Instruction” of January 2016 on the Syro-Malabar issue
Background (for your understanding): What our Petition of 24 May 2014 had asked for. First, we prayed that His Holiness would expand the scope and maintain the spirit of the indult issued by St. John Paul II, for Mumbai in 1993 by issuing unequivocal rulings that apply to all migrants, not only in Delhi but all over the world. Second, we prayed that the spirit of the Indult issued in Mumbai 1993 be extended to Delhi immediately. In short, that His Holiness paternally guide the two Archbishops to consider withdrawing altogether the JPL of 1 November 2013. This was an interim prayer, the final petition begins at no. 3 below; as we did not know if the Church would take such an over-riding decision as requested at No. 3 below in the very first instance. Third (and this was the substantive petition), w3 prayed His Holiness promulgate a universal edict that no one may pass any law, develop any policy or prescribe any procedure that will erect legalistic or bureaucratic barriers between one church and another. “Unity”, must not be destroyed on grounds of “diversity”.
The Rome Document (text) Our Comments and Explanations [Laity4Unity Coordinating Group]
The Title of the Document
“Instruction of the congregation for the oriental
churches
Concerning the request of some faithful of the Syro-
Malabar Church residing in Delhi
To be permitted to receive the sacraments in the Latin
Church
This document came by mail (hard copy) and was addressed explicitly to the two Bishops who signed the Joint Pastoral Letter (JPL). In its body, it also addressed the SM Synod, as we will show. It is signed by Leonardo Cardinal Sandri, Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches. Please note: the document is an “Instruction” to all of them. It is not an “idea” or a “suggestion”; it is not a “proposal”; it is not a “concept note for discussion”. It is not a “subject for debate” by the bishops concerned or by the SM Synod. It is explicitly an “Instruction” to them. What does that mean? There are two possible meanings of the word. The first meaning is a Teaching. The Holy See is teaching everyone – Bishops and flocks – the correct understanding of the issues involved. The second meaning is a Command. In any hierarchy, an “instruction” to someone, coming from a person that has authority over that someone, is a command. It is a command from the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, the supreme authority under the Holy Father, on this issue. This “Instruction” directly concerns “the request of some faithful of the Syro-Malabar church who reside in Delhi, to be permitted to receive the sacraments in Latin Church.” In other words, it is issued in response to our Petition of 24 May 2014.
For many years, the Archdiocese of Delhi has generously provided for the pastoral care of the Syro-Malabar faithful living within the confines of that ecclesial circumscription. Consequently, it is not surprising that some members of this Oriental Church, having lived for a long time in a Latin ecclesial context, should experience a sense of disorientation after the erection of the Eparchy of Faridabad of the Syro-Malabar faithful. Nevertheless, the situation can be happily managed, even within the framework of existing law, if all concerned act with mutual understanding and respect. Recognizing the role that all of us know that the Latin Archdiocese of Delhi has played in our spiritual development over a century or so, the Church also finds it quite understandable, “not surprising”, that we have “a sense of disorientation” with the coming of the SM eparchy - the same phrase used in the indult of Bombay. [Here we will not go into the finer points of Canon Law, which we quoted in our Petition, and under which we argued that the SM Church having come to Delhi 103 years after the latter’s establishment, forfeited its “rights” over us the moment the period crossed 100 years. Leaving aside this legalistic issue, the Church understands our “sense of disorientation” and we are happy to leave it at that.] What is critical here is that the Church emphasizes that “even within the framework of existing law” this problem “can be happily managed’. Two consequences immediately flow out of this unequivocal statement. First, the SM Eparchy is wrong when it claims that we are flouting canon laws. Second, since this is “within the framework of existing law”, there is no need for a special concession or exception, which is called an “Indult”. In other words, no Indult is required. So the SM Church’s recent (post-Instruction) public statements that no Indult was issued is a deliberate misinterpretation to the public. Quite obviously, if no Indult is required, why would one be issued? Thus the document gently but firmly clarifies that the problem could easily have been sorted out and solved locally here in Delhi ‘within the framework of the existing law’ by the Bishops concerned. Remember, the petitioners had met both the Bishops and even the Apostolic Nuncio in this regard – without receiving a solution! While the Latin Archdiocese was prepared to listen and reconsider the Joint Pastoral Letter of November 2013, the Faridabad Eparchy remained intransigent on its stand that “basically there is no choice” for the faithful of SM ancestry. What next? “All concerned” should “act with mutual understanding and respect”. We have every intention to do that. However, is this not an implicit comment to the Bishops to whom the Instruction is addressed that, so far, this Christian spirit was missing?
In the first place it could be useful to recall a few
juridical points of reference. There does not exist a
general right to choose one’s rite; rather, there is a duty
to follow one’s own rite insofar as possible (cfr. CCEO
can.40 §3 and can.35). However, situations arise in
which the request to pass to another Church sui iuris is
comprehensible. In the case at hand, the Bishops “There does not exist a general right to choose one’s rite”. This is easily understood in the context of the word “ascription”, used at other points in the document. “Ascription” is something that is given to us, beyond our control; e.g. race, gender. In the same way we are “ascribed” a rite simply by the fact of our birth. What is explicitly emphasized here, and what was emphasized in a meeting one of our representatives had with Cardinal Sandri in April three months after the issue of the Instruction, was the proviso, “as far as possible”. His Eminence also stated to our
concerned are ready to facilitate the passage for anyone desiring it, and the assent of the Apostolic See may be presumed (cfr CCEO can.32 §2). Care should be taken to register all such transfers accordingly to CCEO can.37. representative that the diversity in the Church was perceived to be part of its richness and beauty, but under no circumstances was it intended to divide people. This principle was stated in our Petition; and this sentiment can be easily shared by the vast majority of Indians, who see their country being deliberately fragmented by unsavoury characters and groups setting off its diverse communities against one another. In the case of situations where people want to change their Rite, the Bishop signatories of the JPL had already expressed their willingness to facilitate the process. Our Petition, however, was unambiguously from those people who do not want to change our Rite; and, under Canon Law, no Bishop is permitted to induce such change in any way. Unfortunately, the SM Church, by repeatedly taunting the faithful with “Why don’t you change your Rite to Latin?” was contravening an explicit prohibition (cited in our Petition) in Canon Law.
Some faithful of the Syro-Malabar Church, who
experience difficulties participating in the parish of their
own Church sui iuris, do not wish to pass over the Latin
Church: this is most understandable and even
praiseworthy, in the light of what has been recalled
above. Such persons may exercise their right to
participate in the liturgical functions of any church sui
iuris (cfr. CCEO can.403 §1, CIC can.923). The Code of
Canon Law of the Latin Church emphasises that the
custom of receiving the sacraments in a given Church
sui iuris does not imply ascription to it (CIC can.112 §2).
As for those of us who are proud of their SM heritage and at the same time wish to be an intrinsic part of the Latin church, the Church finds our position “most understandable and even praiseworthy”. This is a direct rebuttal of the specious argument advanced by some members of the SM laity, with apparent encouragement from the SM hierarchy. Why, they had asked (with no idea of the meaning of Church), are you keeping your feet in two boats? Most Indians would immediately understand why this is “praiseworthy”. If a Punjabi pop singer gives excellent renditions of Subbalakshmi’s Carnatic music, would you decry his efforts? Would you ask him why he is putting his feet into two boats – Punjabi pop and Carnatic classical? Or would you rather find his effort “praiseworthy”? Alternatively, most Catholics would find it clearly ‘praiseworthy if a Latin Priest devotes his ministry to serving leprosy patients in a Syro-Malabar diocese. Would it not be absurd – and un-Christian – for anyone to ask him why he is putting his feet into two boats – Latin and Syrian? The Church clarifies beyond all doubt that, within the existing laws, such persons may “exercise their right” to participate in the liturgical functions of any church sui iuris (autonomous church). Note this is a “right”, not a favour being granted by a local Bishop or even by the Syro-Malabar Synod. Also, simply because you exercise this “right” in a Latin Church you do not become “ascribed” to it – your SM heritage remains with you undiminished. If you, as a Syro-Malabar person participate fully in the Latin Church, you don’t automatically become
Latin. Your SM heritage stays with you - it is ascribed to you, that’s the way you are, that’s your ancestry, that’s your birth-right.
Consequently, a Syro-Malabar faithful, who, in force of
the law itself, is a member of the Syro-Malabar parish
where he has domicile (CCEO can. 280 §1), can remain
fully involved in the life and activities of the parish of
the Latin Church. Both the pastors are called to
understand the delicate situation of such persons and to
facilitate the tranquil and serene prosecution of their
life of faith.
You do not by any means have to ask anyone’s permission to exercise this “right” to take part and be fully involved in the life and activities of the Latin Church. This “Instruction” is addressed to the two pastors, the Bishops and, by implication, all who draw authority from them. In the first place, both the pastors (both Bishops) are explicitly called to show understanding of “the delicate situation of such persons”. But the “Instruction” goes far beyond: they are commanded to make it possible for such people to deal with their life of faith in a calm (“tranquil”) and peaceful (“serene”) atmosphere. The Church is repeating even more strongly its earlier exhortation to act with mutual understanding and respect. In other words, the Church is not just laying down the letter of the law; it is “instructing” the pastors even on the spirit in which they are to practise the law.
In practice, this requires that the Latin pastor, who
substitutes for the faithful’s legitimate pastor, fulfil
what is established by law for the following sacraments:
baptism, confirmation and marriage. For baptism, the
Latin pastor will request permission from the Oriental
pastor (cfr. CCEO can.677 §1, 678 and 683). The
registration of the baptism is to be made in the
Baptismal Register of the Latin parish, specifying the
membership in the Syro-Malabar Church. Moreover,
the Latin pastor will send to the Oriental pastor a
certificate of the baptism for notification. The same
process regards confirmation. As for marriage, the Latin
pastor is the competent minister as long as one of the
two parties is Latin. If, instead, the marriage concerns
two Orientals, the Latin pastor will request delegation
ad validitatem from the Oriental pastor. In the case of
mixed marriage or disparity of cult, the competent
Hierarch is the Oriental. In all these cases, the Latin
pastor will send a notification to the Oriental
pastor. Such inter-ecclesial collaboration should take The SM faithful have no problem and have never had a problem in accepting the fact that, being of SM ancestry, their “legitimate pastor” (shepherd in the law) is the SM bishop. What they have objected to, and will continue to object to, is any authoritarian behaviour by an SM (or a Latin) pastor, especially through misuse of the sacraments. The law and the sacraments are not meant to be used by pastors to go against the fundamental faith of the people. So the Church lays down explicitly here that the Latin pastor will have to “fulfil what is established by law for the following sacraments: baptism, confirmation and marriage”. Lest there be any misunderstanding or legal or bureaucratic quibbling here, the Church gives clear instructions for all three sacraments. The registration of the baptism is to be made in the Baptismal Register of the Latin parish, specifying that the baptised person is a member of the Syro-Malabar Church. [This is easily understood. There are statistical reasons for this. That is how you would know how many people of Latin or Syro-Malabar or Chaldean or Ukrainian “ascription” exist in the world.] But the instructions imply clearly that the people must not be harassed. We don’t have to run around. We don’t have to plead with anyone who tries to make things difficult for us. Specifically, if the marriage concerns two SM people, the Latin pastor (not the candidate himself or herself!) will request “delegation” and “validation” from the Oriental pastor. Again we don’t come into the picture. Our Latin pastor does it on our behalf.
place with respect, solicitude and promptitude, having the spiritual good of the faithful as the final goal. Finally (just in case either pastor hasn’t got the idea yet), here comes further emphasis: “such inter-ecclesial collaboration should take place with respect [no authoritarianism], solicitude [concern] and promptitude [no delays]”. The Church’s no-nonsense firmness on these aspects is evident.
The Members of the Synod of Bishops of the
Syro-Malabar Church will ask of their Priests the same
spirit of willing collaboration whenever a Syro-Malabar
faithful who frequents a Latin parish in Delhi request or
participates in the above- mentioned sacraments in
Kerala. Documentation based upon the register (e.g.
“free state certificate”) will be accepted from either the
Syro-Malabar pastor or the Latin Pastor of the place of
baptism. If other attestations are needed (for example,
that the person is currently practicing), these should be
given by the Latin pastor of the parish frequented by
the individual.
Now, the “Instruction” (i.e. command) goes to the Synod of Bishops of the SM Church, which had started the whole problem in the first place by restraining their priests from accepting status liber certificates (marriage NOCs) from Latin priests. They are to “ask of their Priests the same spirit of willing collaboration” [Note, not reluctant acceptance!] In other words, they are to comply with all good will. They cannot escape from this very strict condition imposed by the Church.
In sum, the faithful ascribed to the SM church residing
in the territory of the Eparchy of Faridabad are subject
to the Eparchial Bishop of that ecclesial Circumscription,
even if, in practice, they frequent Latin
parishes. Nonetheless, let them rest assured that their
situation is understandable and their motivations
respected. All should take care so that these persons do
not feel excluded from full involvement in the Latin
parish or slighted by the SM parish. On their part, a
joyful acceptance of the ecclesial norms is requested,
for these serve to foster the harmonious coexistence of
the faithful of the various sui iuris Churches in India.
To sum up, as SM faithful belonging to the SM church yet fully immersed in our Latin parishes, we would naturally come under the SM Bishop. However, this does not give any kind of authoritarian carte blanche to the SM Eparchy. The Church in Rome, far higher than the Eparchy and the Synod to which the Eparchy reports, gives us its overriding assurance that our situation is understandable. Not only that, “all” (a clear reference to the SM Eparchy and indeed to some unwilling Latin pastors) are to “take care” that we “do not feel excluded from full involvement” in our respective Latin parishes. So no pastor, SM or Latin, may say, you can’t come here because you are Syrian, or you can’t join the SVP, or you can’t be in the Parish Council. Also, none may be “slighted by the SM parish” either. And whose responsibility is it to ensure that such things do not happen? The two Bishops, the SM Synod, every pastor. Finally, only “a joyful acceptance of the ecclesial norms“ will “serve to foster the harmonious coexistence of the faithful of the various sui iuris Churches in India”. The Church enjoins on all of us to make it work.
This Congregation, keeping in mind the necessities of the faithful and observing the current canonical norms, confident of the pastoral solicitude of the Pastors, both the Latin and Syro-Malabar, considers it neither necessary nor opportune to grant particular indults of a general character. Vatican City, 28 January 2016. We now address the important issue that has been so deliberately misrepresented by the SM Synod and the Faridabad Eparchy. Expressing confidence that both the Bishops will show genuine concern for the spiritual well-being of all the faithful, and having made it clear right at the outset that this problem can be sorted out with good will within the existing laws, the “Instruction” quite logically concludes that no exception (or Indult) to these existing laws is called for. The logic is clear: if the law permits an action, why should there be a special exception to permit such an already permitted action? In fact, this is what we said at a meeting with the SM Eparchy team a few months prior to the issuance of the “Instruction”. We categorically told the Faridabad Eparch we did not want an Indult; because that would sound like a special exception for the Petitioners. We wanted a rollback of the JPL for the whole church. This ruling from the Church is crystal clear: what we are asking for is within Church laws, so we don’t need to be given any special concession or exception – in the words of the “Instruction”, no indult is “necessary”.
Conclusion:
This is why we proclaim that the Instruction from Rome is an extremely positive and favourable response and takes into account all the possibilities
and difficulties we highlighted in our petition.
Also, by ruling that our request is within existing church laws, it is clear to us that the Church is laying down – for all to note – certain important
universal principles.
Laity4Unity Coordinating Group
No comments:
Post a Comment