Understanding our Petition
· Petition, not Indult
· Bombay contribution immense – much more material still available with us; and more still lying in Mumbai. Not to mention Madras, Bangalore
Petition’s 155 pages, divided into:
A. Pages 1- 5 of actual Petition
1. Prayer 1: to begin with – get them to withdraw JPL; and issue an Indult similar to Kalyan for Delhi and elsewhere;
2. Prayer 2: universal edict – no barriers between churches; Unity first.
3. Prayer 3: lay down policies for genuine freedom of choice; any priest administers sacraments to any otherwise eligible faithful without Rite.
B. Pages 6-20 Discussions on issues summed up on page 4:
1. Preposterous claims in 1980 – discussion 6-11
2. Setting up barriers against the Latin Church – discussion 12 -16 (Immigration, Diversity)
3. Destroying the spirit of Kalyan Indult – discussion 17-20 (CCEC 1990, Indult 1993, Vatican’s sharp rebuke to SM bishops 105 “liturgy of the church, which is the source of true communion, cannot be a motive for opposition”. Bishop Pazhyathil: “We produce 70% of the clergy in India, while the territory under us is only 0/04%. Therefore we have a right to claim for more territories.”)
C. Pages 21-45 one Index and several facts, statistics and analyses:
1. Kalyan Indult – misinformation compelled laity to ask Pope for clarification;
2. Profiles of Petitioners – not a fringe group but very active
3. Events following the JPL
4. Population data Analysis 1.01L total; Latin 75%, SM 23.5%, SMk .17% 65+40 churches; History of the Archdiocese: at least 1910 (earlier part of Agra).
5. Intrusion of SM eparchy (JPL – “once entrusted”, no such entrustment; 100 years limit; Acquired rights.
6. Financial Aspects – no land legally available; if at all, each church will cost 11.45 cr; annual expenses 12 L; all supported by how many people: (legal issues if people claim their money back).
7. Scandalising our youth – difficult to get them to church; “you’re SM, I’m Latin”.
8. Damage to spiritual and community life of SM: Sacraments, catechesis, SCC, relations between families and clergies on either side.
D. Page 46 index of historical documents;
1. 1974 KCU Bombay got wind of such moves: warned, pleaded against division
2. 1976 Abp Padiyara’s visit to Delhi – a washout – Augustine Mathew
3. 1980 Abp Padiyara’s report: “To save the SM rite emigrants from their present erosion of faith and decline of spiritual life”. Many more questionable statements: “St Thomas the Apostle is the founder of the SM Church.” Letters from several parties asking for SM church. (His secy came to Bby before and said the opposite. Had met Valerian Cdnl Gracias.
4. 1984 80+ Bishops, Abps and a Cardinal (Picachy) passed a resolution against multiple jurisdiction in dioceses.
5. 1984 Madras KCA wrote to Abp clearly NOT wanting SM eparchy
6. 1984 Madras KCA wrote to visiting Bishop Pazhyathil about the disturbing trends of division – pointed out Bangalore’s linguistic divide
7. 1984 Madras KCA memorandum to Bishop Pazhyathil – (1) assure us that you are not setting up a SM eparchy (2) ensure that the Chaplain reports to the local Bishop, not SM church; (3) Abp Padiyara’s report clearly false – the 300 people at the reception to him were not representative, but another 42 people were. They could not understand English but their so called memorandum was in beautiful English. Cited 15+ bishops who wrote to the Pope that the claims of the Padiyara report are “contrary to truth”.
8. 1984 priests (44) write to Bishop Pazhyathil appealing against dividing the people.
9. 1985 PP of Tambaram writes in the same vein
10. 1985 Madras KCA writes to CBCI with several dox; quoted Pazhyathil’s 70% priests argument; SM chaplain creating divisions; need to integrate with local community (Tamils); requested CBCI to intervene (history repeats itself).
11. 1985 Madras KCA to Bp Pazhyathil – Eparchy will bring “no spiritual gain” but instead “religious, social, economic” harm through separation. Rite will lead to loss of faith.
12. 1985 Bangalore: VG writes to Archbishop: SM church surreptitiously establishing SM parish without permission; back-door entry tactics.
13. 1985 Abp Henry D’Souza Kolkata: one-territory-one-bishop; responsible lay people dismayed that decisions are being taken without reference to them. Madras laity “openly and explicitly contradicts” Padiyara Report. “corroborates our own reflections and assessment of the situation in gen.”
14. 1987 KCU Chembur Resolution: “WE do not want to be separated… the system of Rite itself be discontinued.” Cc Secy of State, Vatican; Abp of Bby; CBCI; Propaganda Fide; Congreg for Oriental Churches; President Kerala Syrian Bishops Conference.
15. 1988 JL Simon Pimenta & Paul Chittilapilly
16. 1989 Goregaon Resolution: 320+ delegates representing thousands of SM Catholics: “we shall continue to owe allegiance to Abp of Bombay and shall not submit to the new SM diocese.”
17. 1990 United Laity Front Background Note. Fundamental freedom of choice – why only for clergy? “Archbishop Padiyara made false report”. “Why not be Catholics the world over and if not at least be Indian Catholics?”
18. 1993 Cardinal Sodano to SM Bishops. “It is clear that the Church’s unity is not built up, nor her apostolic fervor strengthened, by spreading division and opposition, or by
leaving room for subjective emotion which can never prove to be a good counselor.” “...It is necessary to avoid the assumption that it is always others who need to change … remove the plank from your own eye before we remove the speck from our brother’s.” “The liturgy of the Church, which is the source of true communion, cannot be a motive for opposition.
19. 2002 Delhi Laity Synod decisions: no eparchy; Freedom of choice was recognized as a fundamental principle”. A section wanted personal parishes.
20. 2005 Abp Vincent Decree of creation of Personal Parishes. Each PP/Asstt will be “appointed by the Abp of Delhi”. No force. “Whether the parishes and parishioners are Latin or Oriental, all within the territory of the Delhi Archdiocese belong to the Archdiocese and come under its jurisdiction.”
21. 2013 Sep-Oct Abp Kuriakose appeal for funds – one tenth of the income
22. 2013 Nov. JPL. Retroactive effect; basically no choice; cease to be members.
23. 2013 Nov. First public meeting – Abp VG and Chancellor present. Prof Joan Antony’s speech; anguish at insensitivity of our shepherds; who decides my tradition? If laity goes, so should clergy. Moveable and immoveable assets. Let those who live in cocoons stay in their cocoons.
24. 2013 Nov. Memorandum after first public meeting:
25. 2013 Nov 27. Abp order keeping JPL in abeyance (60 days as per Canon law).
26. 2013 Aug SM Synod circular insisting on dox from SM only
27. 2013 Nov SM Eparch note of interpretation: no force; basically no choice but there is choice; no comparison with Kalyan Indult; change rite if you want.
28. 2014 Jan: Core Group to Abp reminding of deadline of abeyance; the meaning of patrimony;
29. 2014 Core Group response to Note of Interpretation – simplify the procedures. Rebuttal of “no comparison with Kalyan indult”.
30. 2014 Jan 31 JPL abeyance order – “maintain status quo”
31. 2014 Feb Petitioners’ letter to CBCI – no reply. (a) Diversity should not kill unity. (b) church procedures should not inconvenience laity; (c) treat laity as partners not as spectators. Points brought in: definition of Rite – Canon 28 Sec. 1: the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris.” No change of rite; “prior delegation” for matrimony. Church credibility for youth. Spirit of Kalyan indult.
32. 2014 Feb 23: Opinion Poll. “I wish to continue as I am – no change of rite – let us appeal to the Pope”.
33. 2014 Mar: Notice to Abp of intention to appeal to Rome.
34. Post-Indult scenario in Mumbai.
Josie: Sensus fidei; authentic history of the SM church.
No comments:
Post a Comment