(Protocol No. 197/2014 dated 28 January 2016)
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
___________________________
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 understand and respect.
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 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.
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).
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.
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 inner-ecclesial collaboration should take place with respect, solicitude and promptitude, having the spiritual good of the faithful as the final goal.
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.
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.
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
Signed,
Leonardo Card. Sandri
Prefect
Signed
Cyril Vasil, S.J.
Archbishop Secretary
Saturday, November 25, 2017
A5: Understanding the Rome Instruction
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.
· 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.
A4: Understanding the Rome Instruction On the Syro-Malabar issue
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
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
A3: Service, Service – not Power!
Understanding the Rome Instruction
On the Syro-Malabar issue
It is now universally known that our Petition dated 24 May 2014, titled "Is Christ Divided?" to the Holy Father received a clear, positive and comprehensive response from Rome. This response, in the form of a formal "Instruction" dated 28 January 2016 from the Congregatio pro Ecclesiis Orientalibus (Congregation for the Oriental Churches), signed by its Prefect, Leonardo Cardinal Sandri, has been widely disseminated.
It must be noted that, unlike Kalyan1993 (Mumbai), this is NOT an "Indult" - or "exception" to Church laws; the “Instruction” explicitly states that what is being asked for in the Petition is clearly within Church laws already existing. That explicit statement - as well as the circumstances in which the Petition has been framed - are clearly of universal application. From the clarity, strength and unequivocal nature of the "Instruction" it is amply clear that the principles laid down in the "Instruction" are universal. Once and for all, the issue of inter-ritual choice in such situations stands settled, here and everywhere in the universal Church.
The "Instruction" is also very clear on how the lay faithful of SM ancestry have to be respected and helped; and how all sacraments without exception can be availed of in either Latin or SM church without any compulsion. In this context, it specifically lays down how the Latin and SM pastors have to work with "joyful collaboration" to ensure all this happens.
Three months after receipt of this "Instruction" in India, one of our representatives formally met Cardinal Sandri. The Prefect was very clear: One, Catholics of SM ancestry are encouraged to adopt the SM rite "to the extent possible" (a phrase that appears in the "Instruction" and one that he repeated). Two, the Church has always loved its diversity, but this diversity has never in any way been intended to be a cause for division within it.
A public meeting was convened by the Petitioners on Pentecost Sunday, 2016, where all this was explained in detail. For those who could not attend that meeting - and for others anywhere in the world to whom this issue is pertinent - we now, once again, present the original "Instruction" for your own examination, this time with our explanation and comments, para by para, on what it means.
We look forward to receiving your studied comments in the spirit of the "Instruction". We will also try to answer any queries and provide clarifications wherever required. Having met the Prefect and having studied the Instruction in great detail, we are crystal clear about its meaning and intent; and, if required,
we will be happy to go to the Congregation for further clarification in the event of any attempt to misinterpret the Instruction.
Laity4Unity Coordinating Committee,
New Delhi.
On the Syro-Malabar issue
It is now universally known that our Petition dated 24 May 2014, titled "Is Christ Divided?" to the Holy Father received a clear, positive and comprehensive response from Rome. This response, in the form of a formal "Instruction" dated 28 January 2016 from the Congregatio pro Ecclesiis Orientalibus (Congregation for the Oriental Churches), signed by its Prefect, Leonardo Cardinal Sandri, has been widely disseminated.
It must be noted that, unlike Kalyan1993 (Mumbai), this is NOT an "Indult" - or "exception" to Church laws; the “Instruction” explicitly states that what is being asked for in the Petition is clearly within Church laws already existing. That explicit statement - as well as the circumstances in which the Petition has been framed - are clearly of universal application. From the clarity, strength and unequivocal nature of the "Instruction" it is amply clear that the principles laid down in the "Instruction" are universal. Once and for all, the issue of inter-ritual choice in such situations stands settled, here and everywhere in the universal Church.
The "Instruction" is also very clear on how the lay faithful of SM ancestry have to be respected and helped; and how all sacraments without exception can be availed of in either Latin or SM church without any compulsion. In this context, it specifically lays down how the Latin and SM pastors have to work with "joyful collaboration" to ensure all this happens.
Three months after receipt of this "Instruction" in India, one of our representatives formally met Cardinal Sandri. The Prefect was very clear: One, Catholics of SM ancestry are encouraged to adopt the SM rite "to the extent possible" (a phrase that appears in the "Instruction" and one that he repeated). Two, the Church has always loved its diversity, but this diversity has never in any way been intended to be a cause for division within it.
A public meeting was convened by the Petitioners on Pentecost Sunday, 2016, where all this was explained in detail. For those who could not attend that meeting - and for others anywhere in the world to whom this issue is pertinent - we now, once again, present the original "Instruction" for your own examination, this time with our explanation and comments, para by para, on what it means.
We look forward to receiving your studied comments in the spirit of the "Instruction". We will also try to answer any queries and provide clarifications wherever required. Having met the Prefect and having studied the Instruction in great detail, we are crystal clear about its meaning and intent; and, if required,
we will be happy to go to the Congregation for further clarification in the event of any attempt to misinterpret the Instruction.
Laity4Unity Coordinating Committee,
New Delhi.
A2: The SM Hierarchy misses the point of the Papal Letter
Service, Service – not Power!
The SM Hierarchy misses the point of the Papal Letter
Once again, we hear rumours and disinformation about the SM Church and the SM laity; and so, Delhi’s Laity4Unity hastens to bring you the facts and to put your mind at ease. [For your better understanding, we have taken the liberty of putting some words into bold type.]
One or more media, apparently on the basis of a webcast by Cardinal Allenchery,
reported recently that the Pope had "authorized [the Eastern Churches] to have Pastoral Powers across India". The headline and the by-line of one such report (UCAN) were, respectively:
"Eastern rite rejoices in Right to administer across India"; and
"Pope gives Syro-Malabar Church Powers to evangelize outside its base in southern India".
To put it very simply and without equivocation, this is a self-serving spin on what the “Letter of the Holy Father Pope Francis to the Bishops of India” (“Papal Letter”) dated 9 October 2017 says. The substance of the Papal Letter is this:
(a) “in a world where large numbers of Christians are forced to migrate, overlapping jurisdictions have become customary … for ensuring the pastoral care (Sec. 5);
(b) the pastoral area of the SM church has been extended;
(c) the purpose of such "ecclesiastical circumscription" (such as overlapping jurisdictions) is to enable the SM Church to "provide pastoral care for its faithful throughout the territory of India".
(d) the faithful should protect and preserve the diversity of traditions "while at the same time assuring that such differences do not hinder unity but rather contribute toward it (Lumen Gentium, 13)."
(e) “the Church’s life should not be disrupted by such a provision. Indeed, it must not be negatively interpreted as imposing upon the faithful a requirement to leave the communities which have welcomed them, sometimes for many generations, and to which they have contributed in various ways.”
In addition, the Pastoral Letter uses the word "power" only once - in Section 9 - and that too in a disapproving sense: "May this extension of the pastoral area of the Syro-Malabar Church in no way be perceived as a growth in power and domination, but as a call to deeper communion, which should never be perceived as uniformity"...
Driving in the point even more significantly, at the end of Section 8 of the Papal letter, the Holy Father makes a clear and pointed reference to the “Instruction” issued by the Holy See on 28 January 2016 to the Bishops of Delhi.
This “Instruction” (the term can mean both "Teaching" and "Order") was a direct response to the Petition, "Is Christ Divided?", sent to the Holy Father in May 2014 by a group of ten SM laypersons (Laity4Unity) from New Delhi, representing - and morally and financially supported by – hundreds of lay people who had settled for decades in Delhi.
The Papal Letter reiterates the two substantial points of that Instruction: "No dispensation is required from the law currently in force for the faithful to practice their faith serenely." What is the significance of this sentence and this “Instruction” for the thousands of lay SM Catholics who have been participating fully (sometimes over three or four generations) in the life of their Latin parishes?
First, no Indult (which means "dispensation" or “exception” to an existing Church law) needs to be sought by the SM faithful in Latin parishes at all, because the issue is “within the framework of existing law”. As the Pope explicitly states, "a member of the Syro-Malabar parish where he or she is domiciled ... can remain fully involved in the life and activities of the parish of the Latin Church."
Second, these people should be able to practice their faith "serenely”.
As a matter of fact, the cited Instruction in response to the Delhi Petition, spells things out much more elaborately and in no uncertain manner. We had earlier published the full text of the Instruction. We attach it again, so you can judge for yourself (All bold fonts inserted by us):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Para 1: ... The situation can be happily managed, even within the framework of existing law, if all concerned act with mutual understanding and respect.
Para 3: Some faithful of the Syro-Malabar Church ... do not wish to pass over the Latin Church: this is MOST UNDERSTANDABLE AND EVEN PRAISEWORTHY... Such persons may exercise their RIGHT to participate in the liturgical functions of ANY church sui iuris.
Para 4: 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.
Para 5: Such inner-ecclesial collaboration should take place with respect, solicitude and promptitude, having the spiritual good of the faithful as the final goal.
Para 6: 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.
Para 7: This Congregation, ... 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Promptly on receipt of the above “Instruction”, the Archbishop of Delhi complied, issuing Pastoral instructions to all the Parish Priests in the Archdiocese on how to implement it for Matrimony and other sacraments.]
Further, although issued in response to the Delhi Petition, this “Instruction” lays down principles, whose application and implications are clearly universal.
First, in such cases, no "Indult" (i.e. exception or dispensation) is required because what the SM Catholics are asking for is "within the framework of existing law".
Second, every SM Catholic has a right to participate in the liturgical functions of any church sui iuris.
Third, the SM Catholic’s desire to continue participating in the Latin parish (Church) and not pass it over (or be forced to pass it over) for the SM Church is "most understandable and even praiseworthy".
But the Instruction goes further. Besides clearly laying down what is to be done, the Instruction unequivocally and explicitly lays down how it is to be done. Thus, pastors on both sides are enjoined to show "respect, solicitude and promptitude" as they "facilitate the tranquil and serene prosecution" of the people's "life of faith". Clearly, this “how” again is of universal application.
So, no more harassment or humiliation; no more refusal of NOCs between Rites, no bureaucratic hurdles or subtle delays, no unreasonable or burdensome financial demands, and so on. In fact, for the sacrament of marriage, any SM candidate now has merely to apply to his or her local Parish Priest - even if it is a Latin parish - as any Latin parishioner would do. It is then the duty of this Parish Priest - on his own - to obtain the NOC from the local SM Eparchy. It doesn’t matter if the groom is in a Latin parish and the bride is in a SM parish, or vice versa. It doesn’t matter if one is in Kerala and the other somewhere else in the universe. [If someone outside Delhi wants to know how to implement this, take the Delhi Archdiocese Pastoral instructions as a guide.]
As a member of Laity4Unity sums it up: "The very fact that, in conceding the seemingly justifiable demand of the SM, the Holy See has made a proper reference to the Instruction, clearly citing the number and date, is a message to the SM hierarchy that they have to show great sensitivity (‘respect, solicitude and promptitude’) when extending pastoral care to people like us across the world.”
Every SM Catholic - whether in India or the UK or Europe or the US or Canada or Australia or New Zealand or anywhere else - needs to read and understand the “Papal Letter” and the “Instruction” carefully. The Holy Father and the Church have already laid down the principle. But the laity too has a responsibility, because now it is for similarly placed people to invoke the Instruction as and when the situation so demands.
The Papal Letter uses the term “pastoral care” six times, “unity” five times and “communion” five times. It uses the term “power” only once and that too with disapproval. It also explicitly states that the exercise of any authority must be in accordance with the cited “Instruction” of January 2016.
It is tragic and deplorable, if predictable, that the Papal Letter "extending the pastoral area" of the SM Church is perceived and presented by the SM hierarchy primarily as an "extension of power”.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Laity for Unity
The SM Hierarchy misses the point of the Papal Letter
Once again, we hear rumours and disinformation about the SM Church and the SM laity; and so, Delhi’s Laity4Unity hastens to bring you the facts and to put your mind at ease. [For your better understanding, we have taken the liberty of putting some words into bold type.]
One or more media, apparently on the basis of a webcast by Cardinal Allenchery,
reported recently that the Pope had "authorized [the Eastern Churches] to have Pastoral Powers across India". The headline and the by-line of one such report (UCAN) were, respectively:
"Eastern rite rejoices in Right to administer across India"; and
"Pope gives Syro-Malabar Church Powers to evangelize outside its base in southern India".
To put it very simply and without equivocation, this is a self-serving spin on what the “Letter of the Holy Father Pope Francis to the Bishops of India” (“Papal Letter”) dated 9 October 2017 says. The substance of the Papal Letter is this:
(a) “in a world where large numbers of Christians are forced to migrate, overlapping jurisdictions have become customary … for ensuring the pastoral care (Sec. 5);
(b) the pastoral area of the SM church has been extended;
(c) the purpose of such "ecclesiastical circumscription" (such as overlapping jurisdictions) is to enable the SM Church to "provide pastoral care for its faithful throughout the territory of India".
(d) the faithful should protect and preserve the diversity of traditions "while at the same time assuring that such differences do not hinder unity but rather contribute toward it (Lumen Gentium, 13)."
(e) “the Church’s life should not be disrupted by such a provision. Indeed, it must not be negatively interpreted as imposing upon the faithful a requirement to leave the communities which have welcomed them, sometimes for many generations, and to which they have contributed in various ways.”
In addition, the Pastoral Letter uses the word "power" only once - in Section 9 - and that too in a disapproving sense: "May this extension of the pastoral area of the Syro-Malabar Church in no way be perceived as a growth in power and domination, but as a call to deeper communion, which should never be perceived as uniformity"...
Driving in the point even more significantly, at the end of Section 8 of the Papal letter, the Holy Father makes a clear and pointed reference to the “Instruction” issued by the Holy See on 28 January 2016 to the Bishops of Delhi.
This “Instruction” (the term can mean both "Teaching" and "Order") was a direct response to the Petition, "Is Christ Divided?", sent to the Holy Father in May 2014 by a group of ten SM laypersons (Laity4Unity) from New Delhi, representing - and morally and financially supported by – hundreds of lay people who had settled for decades in Delhi.
The Papal Letter reiterates the two substantial points of that Instruction: "No dispensation is required from the law currently in force for the faithful to practice their faith serenely." What is the significance of this sentence and this “Instruction” for the thousands of lay SM Catholics who have been participating fully (sometimes over three or four generations) in the life of their Latin parishes?
First, no Indult (which means "dispensation" or “exception” to an existing Church law) needs to be sought by the SM faithful in Latin parishes at all, because the issue is “within the framework of existing law”. As the Pope explicitly states, "a member of the Syro-Malabar parish where he or she is domiciled ... can remain fully involved in the life and activities of the parish of the Latin Church."
Second, these people should be able to practice their faith "serenely”.
As a matter of fact, the cited Instruction in response to the Delhi Petition, spells things out much more elaborately and in no uncertain manner. We had earlier published the full text of the Instruction. We attach it again, so you can judge for yourself (All bold fonts inserted by us):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Para 1: ... The situation can be happily managed, even within the framework of existing law, if all concerned act with mutual understanding and respect.
Para 3: Some faithful of the Syro-Malabar Church ... do not wish to pass over the Latin Church: this is MOST UNDERSTANDABLE AND EVEN PRAISEWORTHY... Such persons may exercise their RIGHT to participate in the liturgical functions of ANY church sui iuris.
Para 4: 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.
Para 5: Such inner-ecclesial collaboration should take place with respect, solicitude and promptitude, having the spiritual good of the faithful as the final goal.
Para 6: 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.
Para 7: This Congregation, ... 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Promptly on receipt of the above “Instruction”, the Archbishop of Delhi complied, issuing Pastoral instructions to all the Parish Priests in the Archdiocese on how to implement it for Matrimony and other sacraments.]
Further, although issued in response to the Delhi Petition, this “Instruction” lays down principles, whose application and implications are clearly universal.
First, in such cases, no "Indult" (i.e. exception or dispensation) is required because what the SM Catholics are asking for is "within the framework of existing law".
Second, every SM Catholic has a right to participate in the liturgical functions of any church sui iuris.
Third, the SM Catholic’s desire to continue participating in the Latin parish (Church) and not pass it over (or be forced to pass it over) for the SM Church is "most understandable and even praiseworthy".
But the Instruction goes further. Besides clearly laying down what is to be done, the Instruction unequivocally and explicitly lays down how it is to be done. Thus, pastors on both sides are enjoined to show "respect, solicitude and promptitude" as they "facilitate the tranquil and serene prosecution" of the people's "life of faith". Clearly, this “how” again is of universal application.
So, no more harassment or humiliation; no more refusal of NOCs between Rites, no bureaucratic hurdles or subtle delays, no unreasonable or burdensome financial demands, and so on. In fact, for the sacrament of marriage, any SM candidate now has merely to apply to his or her local Parish Priest - even if it is a Latin parish - as any Latin parishioner would do. It is then the duty of this Parish Priest - on his own - to obtain the NOC from the local SM Eparchy. It doesn’t matter if the groom is in a Latin parish and the bride is in a SM parish, or vice versa. It doesn’t matter if one is in Kerala and the other somewhere else in the universe. [If someone outside Delhi wants to know how to implement this, take the Delhi Archdiocese Pastoral instructions as a guide.]
As a member of Laity4Unity sums it up: "The very fact that, in conceding the seemingly justifiable demand of the SM, the Holy See has made a proper reference to the Instruction, clearly citing the number and date, is a message to the SM hierarchy that they have to show great sensitivity (‘respect, solicitude and promptitude’) when extending pastoral care to people like us across the world.”
Every SM Catholic - whether in India or the UK or Europe or the US or Canada or Australia or New Zealand or anywhere else - needs to read and understand the “Papal Letter” and the “Instruction” carefully. The Holy Father and the Church have already laid down the principle. But the laity too has a responsibility, because now it is for similarly placed people to invoke the Instruction as and when the situation so demands.
The Papal Letter uses the term “pastoral care” six times, “unity” five times and “communion” five times. It uses the term “power” only once and that too with disapproval. It also explicitly states that the exercise of any authority must be in accordance with the cited “Instruction” of January 2016.
It is tragic and deplorable, if predictable, that the Papal Letter "extending the pastoral area" of the SM Church is perceived and presented by the SM hierarchy primarily as an "extension of power”.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Laity for Unity
Thursday, November 23, 2017
LETTER OF THE HOLY FATHER POPE FRANCIS TO THE BISHOPS OF INDIA
Dear Brother Bishops,
1. The remarkable varietas Ecclesiarum, the result of a long historical, cultural, spiritual and
disciplinary development, constitutes a treasure of the Church, regina in vestitu deaurato
circumdata variegate (cf. Ps 44 and Leo XIII, Orientalium Dignitas), who awaits her groom
with the fidelity and patience of the wise virgin, equipped with an abundant supply of oil, so
that the light of her lamp may enlighten all peoples in the long night of awaiting the Lord’s
coming.
This variety of ecclesial life, which shines with great splendour throughout lands and nations,
is also found in India. The Catholic Church in India has its origins in the preaching of the
Apostle Thomas. It developed through contact with the Churches of Chaldean and Antiochian
traditions and, from the sixteenth century onward, through the efforts of Latin missionaries.
The history of Christianity in this great country thus led to three distinct sui iuris Churches,
corresponding to ecclesial expressions of the same faith celebrated in different rites according
to the three liturgical, spiritual, theological and disciplinary traditions. Although this situation
has sometimes led to tensions in the course of history, today we can admire a Christian
presence that is both rich and beautiful, complex and unique.
2. It is essential for the Catholic Church to reveal her face in all its beauty to the world, in the
richness of her various traditions. For this reason the Congregation for the Oriental Churches,
which celebrates its centenary year, having been established through the farsightedness of
Pope Benedict XV in 1917, has encouraged, where necessary, the restoration of Eastern
Catholic traditions, and ensured their protection, as well as respect for the dignity and rights
of these ancient Churches.
3. The Second Vatican Council embraced this vision of the Church and reminded the faithful
of the need to protect and preserve the treasure of the particular traditions of each Church.
“Moreover, within the Church particular Churches hold a rightful place; these Churches retain
their own traditions, without in any way opposing the primacy of the Chair of Peter, which
presides over the whole assembly of charity (cf. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Rom., Praef.), and
protects legitimate differences, while at the same time assuring that such differences do not
hinder unity but rather contribute toward it” (Lumen Gentium, 13).
4. As Lumen Gentium teaches, it is for the Bishop of Rome to promote unity in the diversity
of the Body of Christ. In this task, the Roman Pontiffs faithfully interpret and apply the voice
of the Second Vatican Council, which expressed the ardent desire that the Oriental Churches,
venerated for their antiquity, should “flourish and with new apostolic vigour execute the task
entrusted to them” (Orientalium Ecclesiarum, 1). Their responsibility is not only to become
ever more effective instruments of that “special duty of promoting the unity of all Christians,
especially Eastern Christians” (Orientalium Ecclesiarum, 24), but also to promote their “equal
dignity […] for they enjoy the same rights and are under the same obligations, also in respect
of preaching the Gospel to the whole world” (Orientalium Ecclesiarum, 3).
Thirty years ago, my beloved predecessor Saint John Paul II wrote a Letter to the Bishops of
India. Drawing on the Second Vatican Council, he sought to apply the conciliar teaching to
the Indian context. In India, even after many centuries, Christians are only a small proportion
of the population and, consequently, there is a particular need to demonstrate unity and to
avoid any semblance of division. Saint John Paul II also stated that the need for unity and the
preservation of diversity are not opposed to one another: “This need to be faithful to the
2 traditions and patrimony of one’s own rite must not be interpreted as an interference with the
Church’s task of ‘gathering into one the children of God who are scattered abroad’ (Jn 11:52)
or with the mission of the Church to promote the communion of all people with the Redeemer”
(Epistula ad Indiae Episcopos, 28 May 1987).
5. Five decades ago, when the Syro-Malabar Church expanded to some central and northern
parts of India with “missionary eparchies”, it was generally thought by the Latin Bishops that
there should be just one jurisdiction, that is, one bishop in a particular territory. These
eparchies, created from Latin dioceses, today have exclusive jurisdiction over those territories,
both of the Latin and Syro-Malabar faithful. However, both in the traditional territories of the
Eastern Churches, as well as in the vast area of the so-called diaspora (where these faithful
have long been established), a fruitful and harmonious cooperation between Catholic bishops
of the different sui iuris Churches within the same territory has taken place. This cooperation
not only offers an ecclesiological justification for such a solution, but also demonstrates its
pastoral benefits. In a world where large numbers of Christians are forced to migrate,
overlapping jurisdictions have become customary and are increasingly effective tools for
ensuring the pastoral care of the faithful while also ensuring full respect for their ecclesial
traditions.
6. In India itself, overlapping jurisdictions should no longer be problematic, for the Church
has experienced them for some time, such as in Kerala. Saint John Paul II’s Letter authorized
the erection of a Syro-Malabar eparchy in the Bombay-Pune region, which became the Eparchy
of Kalyan. In 2012 the Syro-Malabar Eparchy of Faridabad was erected in the region of Delhi
and its neighbouring states, while the boundaries of the Eparchy of Mandya were extended in
2015 to include the metropolitan area of Bangalore. In the same year, an Eparchy and an
Apostolic Exarchate were erected for the Syro-Malankar faithful, so that by these ecclesiastical
circumscriptions the Syro-Malankar Church could provide pastoral care for its faithful
throughout the territory of India. All these developments show that, albeit not without
problems, the presence of a number of bishops in the same area does not compromise the
mission of the Church. On the contrary, these steps have given greater impetus to the local
Churches for their pastoral and missionary efforts.
7. In 2011 my predecessor Benedict XVI wished to provide for the pastoral needs of the SyroMalabar
faithful throughout India, and I confirmed his intention following the plenary session
of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches in 2013. Archbishop Raphael Thattil is currently
the Apostolic Visitor for those Syro-Malabar faithful in India who live outside their own
territory, and he has provided detailed reports to the Apostolic See. This issue has been
examined in meetings at the highest levels of the Church. Following these steps, I believe the
time is now right to complete this process.
I have therefore authorized the Congregation for the Oriental Churches to provide for the
pastoral care of the Syro-Malabar faithful throughout India by the erection of two Eparchies
and by the extension of the boundaries of the two already in existence.
I decree also that the new circumscriptions, as with those already in existence, be entrusted
to the pastoral care of the Major Archbishop of Ernakulam-Angamaly and to the Synod of
Bishops of the Syro-Malabar Church, according to the norms of the Code of Canons of the
Eastern Churches.
8. I hope that my decision will be welcomed with a generous and peaceful spirit, although it
may be a source of apprehension for some, since many Syro-Malabars, deprived of pastoral
care in their own rite, are at present fully involved in the life of the Latin Church. I am
convinced, however, that all those involved will understand that there is no need for concern:
the Church’s life should not be disrupted by such a provision. Indeed it must not be negatively
interpreted as imposing upon the faithful a requirement to leave the communities which have
welcomed them, sometimes for many generations, and to which they have contributed in
various ways. It should rather be seen as an invitation as well as an opportunity for growth in
faith and communion with their sui iuris Church, in order to preserve the precious heritage of
their rite and to pass it on to future generations. There is already an instruction by the
Congregation for the Oriental Churches to the Eparchy of Faridabad, which indicates that a
member of the Syro-Malabar faithful, by virtue of the same law, is also a member of the SyroMalabar
parish where he or she is domiciled (Code of Canons of the Eastern
Churches, Can, 280 §1); yet at the same time, he or she can remain fully involved in the life
and activities of the parish of the Latin Church. No dispensation is required from the law
currently in force for the faithful to practice their faith serenely, and they may do this with the
pastoral care of either Latin or Syro-Malabar pastors (cf. Prot. No. 197/2014, 28 January
2016).
9. The path of the Catholic Church in India cannot be that of isolation and separation, but
rather of respect and cooperation. The presence of several bishops of the various sui
iuris Churches in the same territory will surely offer an eloquent witness to a vibrant and
marvellous communion. This is the vision of the Second Vatican Council, which I quote once
again: “Between all the parts of the Church there remains a bond of close communion whereby
they share spiritual riches, apostolic workers and temporal resources. For the members of the
people of God are called to share these goods in common, and of each of the Churches the
words of the Apostle hold good: ‘According to the gift that each has received, administer it to
one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God’ (1 Pet 4:10)” (Lumen Gentium,
13). It is in this spirit that I urge all the beloved Churches in India to be generous and
courageous as they witness to the Gospel in the spirit of fraternity and mutual love. For the
Syro-Malabar Church, this continues the valued work of their priests and religious in the Latin
context, and sustains their availability for those Syro-Malabar faithful who, although choosing
to attend Latin parishes, may request some assistance from their Church of origin. The Latin
rite Church can continue to generously offer hospitality to members of the Syro-Malabar
communities who do not have church buildings of their own. The cooperation among all the sui
iuris Churches should continue, for example in the area of retreats and seminars for clergy,
Bible conferences, celebrations of common feast days and ecumenical endeavours. With the
growth of spiritual friendship and mutual assistance, any tension or apprehension should be
swiftly overcome. May this extension of the pastoral area of the Syro-Malabar Church in no
way be perceived as a growth in power and domination, but as a call to deeper communion,
which should never be perceived as uniformity. In the words of Saint Augustine, who sang
the praises of the Trinity and of the wonderful communion of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit, I also ask you: dilatentur spatia caritatis (Sermon 69, PL 5, 440.441). May there be a
growth in love, communion and service.
Dear brother Bishops, I commend all of you to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and
I assure you of my closeness in prayer. To all of you, the Church and the faithful in India, I
impart my Apostolic Blessing, and I ask that you pray for me.
From the Vatican, 9 October 2017
FRANCIS
Sunday, March 29, 2015
പൗരോഹിത്യ/സന്ന്യസ്ത ജീവിതവും അതിലെ വിരോധാഭാസവും
ചാക്കോ കളരിക്കൽ
ലോകമെമ്പാടും ലക്ഷകണക്കിന് പുരോഹിതരും സന്ന്യാസീസന്ന്യാസിനികളും കത്തോലിക്കാസഭയിൽ ഇന്ന് സേവനം ചെയ്യുന്നുണ്ട്. എങ്കിലും അവരുടെ എണ്ണം ദിനംപ്രതി കുറഞ്ഞുകൊണ്ടാണിരിക്കുന്നത്. വൈദികവൃത്തിയും സന്ന്യസ്തജീവിതവും ഉപേക്ഷിച്ച് പുരോഹിതരും കന്യാസ്ത്രികളും പുറം ലോകത്തേയ്ക്ക് പോകുന്നതാണ് അതിനുള്ള ഒരു കാരണം. ആയിരക്കണക്കിന് പുരോഹിതരും കന്യാസ്ത്രികളും സഭാവസ്ത്രം ഉപേക്ഷിച്ച് പോകുന്ന ഈ കാലഘട്ടത്തിൽ അവരുടെ ഭാവി ക്ഷേമത്തിനായി കത്തോലിക്കാ സഭാധികാരവും അവർ സേവനം ചെയ്തിരുന്ന രൂപതകളോ സന്ന്യാസാശ്രമങ്ങളോ മഠങ്ങളോ കുടുംബക്കാരോ സഭാപൗരർ മൊത്തത്തിലുമോ ക്രിയാത്മകമായി എന്തു ചെയ്യുന്നു എന്നതിലേയ്ക്ക് ഒരെത്തിനോട്ടവും അതിലേയ്ക്കായി ചില നിർദേശങ്ങളുമാണ് ഈ ലേഖനംകൊണ്ട് ഉദ്ദേശിക്കുന്നത്.
പൗരോഹിത്യ/കന്യാസ്ത്രി ജീവിതത്തിൽനിന്നും അല്മായ ജീവിതത്തിലേയ്ക്കുള്ള മാറ്റത്തിൽ വന്നുകൂടുന്ന ജീവിതപ്രശ്നങ്ങൾ വളരെയാണ്. അവർ ഇന്ന് വേദനാജനകമായ ജീവിത സാഹചര്യങ്ങളിൽകൂടിയാണ് കടന്നുപോകുന്നത് എന്ന സത്യം എല്ലാവർക്കും അറിയാവുന്ന കാര്യവുമാണ്.
ചെറുപ്രായത്തിൽ അവർ സഭാസേവനത്തിനായി ചേരുന്നു; അതല്ലെങ്കിൽ സഭാധികാരികൾ അതിനായി അവരെ റിക്രൂട്ടുചെയ്യുന്നു. കാനോൻ നിയമപ്രകാരം 17 വയസ് തികഞ്ഞ കുട്ടികളെ നോവിഷ്യേറ്റിലേയ്ക്ക് സ്വീകരിക്കാം (കാനോന: 517. 1). 18 വയസ് തികഞ്ഞവർക്ക് താല്കാലിക വ്രതവാഗ്ദാനം ചെയ്യാം. രണ്ട് വ്രതനവീകരണങ്ങൾക്കുശേഷം നിത്യവ്രതവാഗ്ദാനവും ചെയ്യാം. വിവേകം, ഉപവി, അറിവ്, ഭക്തി, സന്ന്യാസാവസ്ഥയുടെ അനുഷ്ടാനത്തിലുള്ള മികവ് എന്നീ ഗുണങ്ങൾ ഉള്ളവരെയാണ് വ്രതവാഗ്ദാനം ചെയ്യാൻ അനുവദിക്കുന്നത്. ഭാവിയിൽ അവർ രൂപതയ്ക്കോ ആശ്രമങ്ങൾക്കോ മഠത്തിനോവേണ്ടി വേലചയ്ത് ജീവിക്കുന്നു. അവർ സഭാസേവനത്തിൽ ആയിരിക്കുന്നിടത്തോളംകാലം പല കാര്യങ്ങളിലും പല വിധത്തിലും സുരക്ഷിതരുമാണ്. രൂപതക്കുവേണ്ടി പട്ടമേക്കുന്നവർ മെത്രാൻറെ ഇഷ്ടപ്രകാരം ഇടവകകളിലോ മറ്റെവിടെയോ സേവനം ചെയ്യുന്നു. സന്ന്യാസീസന്ന്യാസിനികൾ ലക്ഷ്യം, പ്രകൃതി, സ്വഭാവമെല്ലാം സ്ഥിതീകരിക്കപ്പെട്ട ഒരു പ്രത്യേക സമൂഹത്തിൽചേർന്ന് അനുസരണം, ബ്രഹ്മചര്യം, ദാരിദ്ര്യം എന്നീ മൂന്ന് പരസ്യവ്രതങ്ങൾ ചെയ്ത് ആ സഭയുടെ പ്രത്യേകമായ ആധ്യാത്മികതയെ അനുധാവനം ചെയ്യുന്നു. ആ സമൂഹത്തിൻറെ പ്രത്യേക വേലകളിൽ പങ്കാളികളായി ജീവിക്കുന്നു. നിത്യവ്രതം കഴിഞ്ഞാൽ അവർ ആ സഭയുടെ പൂർണ്ണഅംഗങ്ങളായി അംഗീകരിക്കപ്പെടുന്നു. അവരുടെ സമൂഹത്തിൻറെ സാമ്പത്തിക അഭിവൃത്തിക്കുവേണ്ടിയുള്ള ജോലികൾപോലും ‘ദൈവസേവനം’ എന്ന പേരിലാണ് അറിയപ്പെടുന്നത്!
കത്തോലിക്കാസഭയിലെ കന്യാസ്ത്രികൾ സഭയിലെ ജോലിക്കാരായ തേനീച്ചകളാണ്. കാരണം വർക്കർ ബീസ് എല്ലാം സ്ത്രീവർഗത്തിൽ പെട്ടതും അവരുടെ ലൈംഗീകത പ്രകൃതിയാൽത്തന്നെ നിഷേധിക്കപ്പെട്ടതും ജീവിതകാലം മുഴുവൻ അവറ്റകളുടെ കോളനിക്കുവേണ്ടി അഹോരാത്രം വേലചെയ്ത് അവസാനം ചത്തടിയുകയും ചെയ്യുന്നു. കന്യാസ്ത്രികൾ സെക്സ് സ്വമനസാ വേണ്ടന്നുവെച്ച് ജീവിതകാലം മുഴുവൻ ശബളമില്ലാതെ സ്വന്തം സഭക്കുവേണ്ടി രാപകലില്ലാതെ വേലചെയ്ത് മരിക്കുമ്പോൾ സ്വർഗം പൂകാമെന്ന് വിശ്വസിക്കുന്നു. കന്യാസ്ത്രികളായ തേനീച്ചകളുടെ ജോലിയുടെ വ്യാപ്തി അളക്കാൻ സാധ്യമല്ല. ഈ പാരിദോഷികമില്ലാത്ത ജോലി സ്ഥാപനവൽക്കരിക്കപ്പെടുകയും ലോകം അതിനെ അംഗീകരിക്കുകയും ചെയ്തിരിക്കുന്നു. അത് കഷ്ടം തന്നെയെന്ന് പറയാതിരിക്കാൻ വയ്യ. സഭയിലെ ഈ സാമൂഹിക അനീതിയെ സഭതന്നെ തിരുത്തേണ്ടതാണ്. അതിനുള്ള കാഴ്ചപ്പാടും വീക്ഷണവും മൂല്ല്യവിചാരവും വിവേകപൂർവമായ തീരുമാനങ്ങളും ഉണ്ടായാൽ മാത്രം മതി.
കന്യാസ്ത്രികളുടെ പലവിധജോലികൾ കത്തോലിക്കാസഭയുടെ നടത്തിപ്പിന് ആവശ്യമാണ്. അവരുടെ സേവനസംഭാവനകൾവഴി സഭയുടെ പ്രവർത്തനങ്ങൾ ഫലപ്രദവും സ്വാധീനം ചെലുത്തുന്ന ശക്തിയുമായിത്തീരുന്നു. എഴുപതും എണ്പതും വയസ്സുള്ള കന്യാസ്ത്രികളുടെ നീണ്ട ജീവിത അദ്ധ്വാനഫലംകൊണ്ടാണ് മഠങ്ങൾ സാമ്പത്തീകമായി അഭിവൃത്തിപ്പെട്ടിട്ടുള്ളത്. കന്യസ്ത്രികളുടെ വേതനമില്ലാത്ത ബൃഹത്തായ ജോലിസംഭാവനകൾ സ്ഥാപനവൽക്കരിക്കപ്പെടുകമൂലം കോടിക്കണക്കിന് രൂപയുടെ വരുമാനം സഭക്ക് ലഭിക്കുന്നു. ഈ കന്യാസ്ത്രികൾ പലവിധ ജോലികളാണ് സാമ്പത്തീക പ്രതിഫലമില്ലാതെ ചെയ്യുന്നത് - അധ്യാപികമാർ, പ്രഫസർമാർ, ഡോക്ടർമാർ, നേഴ്സുമാർ, കുട്ടികൾക്കും വൃദ്ധർക്കുംവേണ്ടിയുള്ള ആതുരസേവനം, മിഷ്യൻസ്ഥലങ്ങളിലെ സേവനം, മഠങ്ങളിലെ ജോലികൽ, തുടങ്ങിയവ. കൂടാതെ സ്വന്തം സമൂഹത്തിൻറെ അഭിവൃത്തിക്കുവേണ്ടി അഹോരാത്രം പരിശ്രമിക്കുന്നു. സ്കൂളുകൾ, കോളേജുകൾ, ആശുപത്രികൾ, ഓർഫണേജുകൾ, മഠങ്ങൾ തുടങ്ങിയ വൻപ്രസ്ഥാനങ്ങൾ എല്ലാം കന്യാസ്ത്രികൾ നിയന്ത്രിച്ച് പണിത് നടത്തികൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്നു. വളരെ ഉത്തരവാദിത്വമുള്ള നിരവധി സ്ഥാപനങ്ങൾ നടത്തുന്നു. സ്വന്തം സമൂഹത്തിനുവേണ്ടി ധനം ശേഖരിക്കുന്നു. കൂടാതെ മറ്റ് മഠങ്ങളിലേക്കോ സംസ്ഥാനങ്ങളിലേക്കോ രാജ്യങ്ങളിലേക്കോ ഭൂഖണ്ഡങ്ങളിലേക്കോ സ്ഥലം മാറ്റപ്പെടുന്നു. കോടിക്കണക്കിന് ജനങ്ങളുടെ ജീവിതത്തെ ഈ കന്യാസ്ത്രികൾ ധന്യമാക്കുന്നു, യാതൊരു പ്രതിഫലവും പ്രതീക്ഷിക്കാതെ.
മനുഷ്യർ പലതരക്കാർ എന്നപോലെ കന്യാസ്ത്രികളും പലതരത്തിലുള്ള വ്യക്തികളാണ്. വ്യക്തിപരമായി നല്ല ഗുണങ്ങൾ ഉള്ളവരും പൊതുസാഹചര്യവുമായി ഒത്തുചേർന്ന്പോകുന്നവരും നിശ്ചയദാർഡ്യക്കാരും എന്നാൽ വഴങ്ങുന്ന സ്വഭാവക്കാരും അനുസരണത്തിൻകീഴിൽ ജീവിച്ച് താനായിരിക്കുന്ന സമൂഹത്തിൻറെ നന്മയ്ക്കായി സ്വയം കാഴ്ച്ചവെച്ച് സഹപ്രവത്തനം നടത്തുന്നവരുമാണവർ. പണ്ടുകാലങ്ങളിൽ വ്രതംചെയ്ത കന്യാസ്ത്രികൾ ജീവിതകാലം മുഴുവൻ അവരുടെ സമൂഹത്തിൽത്തന്നെ ജീവിച്ച് മരിക്കുമായിരുന്നു. കാലം മാറി. ഇപ്പോൾ അവർ അവരുടെ ജീവിതാവസ്ഥയെ പുനർവിചിന്തിനം ചെയ്യുകയും തനിക്ക് പറ്റിയതല്ലെന്ന് തോന്നിയാൽ വ്രതത്തിൽനിന്ന് ഒഴിവുവാങ്ങി മാത്തിൻറെ നാല് ഭിത്തികളെ ഭേദിച്ച് പുറം ലോകത്തേയ്ക്ക് കടന്നുപോകുന്നു. രണ്ടാം വത്തിക്കാൻ കൌണ്സിലും പോൾ ആറാമൻ മാർപാപ്പയും സന്ന്യാസ സമൂഹങ്ങൾക്കുള്ളിൽ കാലോചിതമായ നവീകരണം നടപ്പിലാക്കണമെന്ന് നിർദേശിക്കുകയുണ്ടായി. അതിൻറെ പരിണതഫലമായി പണ്ടുകാലങ്ങളിൽ ചോദ്യം ചെയ്യാൻ ധൈര്യപ്പെടാത്ത പല കാര്യങ്ങളും ചോദ്യം ചെയ്യപ്പെട്ടു. സംവാദങ്ങൾ നടത്തി. ആധുനിക കാലഘട്ടത്തിൻറെ ആവശ്യങ്ങളെ കണ്ടറിഞ്ഞ് വേണ്ട തിരുത്തലുകൾ വരുത്തി സന്ന്യസ്ഥജീവിതത്തെ പുനർനിർവചിക്കാൻ ആരംഭിച്ചു. കന്യാസ്ത്രികൾ പ്രത്യേകിച്ച് പാശ്ചാത്യദേശങ്ങളിലെ സഹോദരികൾ വ്യക്തിപരമായിത്തന്നെ സ്വജീവിതത്തിൻറെ അർത്ഥം/ലക്ഷ്യം നിർണയിക്കാൻ തുടങ്ങി. തല്ഫലമായി ആയിരക്കണക്കിന് കന്യാസ്ത്രികൾ തങ്ങളുടെ ജീവിതാന്തസ് ഉപേക്ഷിച്ചുപോയി. ഇന്നും ആ പ്രക്രിയ തുടർന്നുകൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്നു. ഭാവി കത്തോലിക്കാസഭ ഇന്ന് നാം കാണുന്നതുപോലെ ആയിരിക്കുകയില്ല.
ഓരോ കന്യാസ്ത്രിയും മഠത്തിൽനിന്നും പോകുന്നത് ഓരോരോ കാരണങ്ങൾകൊണ്ടായിരിക്കും. അത് ആധ്യാത്മികതയായിരിക്കാം; ജോലിയായിരിക്കാം; ജീവിതരീതിയായിരിക്കാം; ശാരീരികവും മാനസീകവുമായ അനാരോഗ്യമായിരിക്കാം; സഭാഘടനയായിരിക്കാം; സഭാധികാരികളായിരിക്കാം; കത്തോലിക്കാസഭയുടെ യാഥാസ്ഥിതിക മനോഭാവമായിരിക്കാം; വെറും വ്യക്തിപരമായിരിക്കാം. ചില കന്യാസ്ത്രികൾക്ക് കുറെക്കാലം കഴിയുമ്പോൾ വേറൊരു ജീവിതാന്തസായിരിക്കും ഇഷ്ടം. മറ്റുചിലർക്ക് വിവാഹിതരായി കുട്ടികളെ ജനിപ്പിച്ചുവളർത്തി യഥാർത്ഥ അമ്മമാരാകുന്നതിലായിരിക്കും താല്പര്യം. ഈ സ്ത്രീകളുടെ കത്തോലിക്കാ വിശ്വാസത്തിന് യാതൊരു കോട്ടവും സംഭവിക്കുന്നില്ല. വിശ്വാസത്തിൻറെ പുതിയ ആവിഷ്ക്കാരത്തിലൂടെ അത് സാക്ഷാൽക്കരിക്കപ്പെടുകയാണ് ചെയ്യുന്നത്. സ്വന്തം ജീവിതത്തിൻറെ എല്ലാ തലങ്ങളെയും ആഴമായി പഠിച്ച് പക്വമായ ഒരു തീരുമാനം വഴിയാണ് വ്രതങ്ങളിൽനിന്നു വിടുതൽ വാങ്ങിക്കുന്നത്. മുമ്പ് ചിന്തിക്കപോലും ചെയ്തിട്ടില്ലാത്ത അനിശ്ചിതമായ പുറംലോക ജീവിതത്തിലേയ്ക്ക് കാലെടുത്തുകുത്താൻ ഒരു കന്യാസ്ത്രിക്ക് ആത്മധൈര്യവും ഉദ്ദേശദാർഡ്യവും ഒപ്പം ആവശ്യമാണ്. കാരണം മഠത്തിലെ സുരക്ഷിതവും ഭദ്രവുമായ ജീവിതം, ആധ്യാത്മീകത, സന്ന്യസ്ഥജീവിതത്തോടുള്ള മാനസീകവും ശാരീരികവും വൈകാരികവുമായ അടുപ്പവുമെല്ലാം ഉപേക്ഷിക്കേണ്ടിവരുന്നു. തൻറെ യൗവനകാലം മുഴുവൻ മഠത്തിലും മഠത്തിനുവേണ്ടിയും ജീവിച്ചു. ഇനി ഇതാ പുറം ലോകത്തേയ്ക്കിറങ്ങുന്നു. അതിനാൽ സങ്കടത്തിൻറെയും കുറ്റബോധത്തിൻറെയും അനിശ്ചിതത്വത്തിൻറെയും ഗൃഹാതുരത്വത്തിൻറെയും ശീലിച്ച ജീവിതരീതിയെ വിട്ടുപോരുന്നതിൻറെയും സഹപാഠികളെ ഉപേക്ഷിച്ചുപോരുന്നതിൻറെയുമായ എല്ലാ വേദനകളെയും തരണം ചെയ്യണം. സ്വന്തം കുടുംബത്തെ ഉപേക്ഷിക്കുന്നതുപോലെത്തന്നെയാണ് സ്വന്തം മഠത്തെ ഉപേക്ഷിച്ചുപോകുന്നതും.
നിത്യവ്രതം വാഗ്ദാനംചെയ്തവർ ഗുരുതരമായ തെറ്റിലകപ്പെട്ടാൽ മാത്രമെ ആശ്രമങ്ങളിൽനിന്നോ മഠങ്ങളിൽനിന്നോ പുറംതള്ളാവൂ എന്ന് കാനോന അനുശാസിക്കുന്നുണ്ട് (കാനോന: 500. 2. 1). കൂടാതെ പുറത്താക്കലിന് മുന്നോടിയായി പുറത്താക്കൽ ഭീഷണിയോടുകൂടിയ രണ്ട് മുന്നറിയിപ്പ് നൽകേണ്ടതുമാണ് (കാനോന: 500. 2. 2). കാനോൻ നിയമത്തിലെ വകുപ്പുകളൊന്നും സന്ന്യാസസഭാധികാരികൾ പലപ്പോഴും നോക്കാറില്ല. ഒരു കന്യാസ്ത്രിയെ പുറംതള്ളണമെന്നവർ തീരുമാനിച്ചാൽ ആ കന്യാസ്ത്രിയെ പുറംതള്ളിയിരിക്കും. പുറംതള്ളപ്പെടുന്ന ഒരു സാധു സ്ത്രീയ്ക്ക് സഭാധികാരത്തോട് പൊരുതി ജയിക്കാൻ നിർവാഹമൊന്നുമില്ല.ഉത്കൃഷ്ടമായ ഒരു ജീവിതാന്തസായി കന്യാസ്ത്രിജീവിതത്തെ കുടുംബക്കാർ കണ്ടിരുന്നെങ്കിൽ മഠമുപേക്ഷിച്ച് വീട്ടിലേയ്ക്ക് തിരികെചെല്ലുബോൾ അവരുടെ പ്രതികരണം എന്തായിരിക്കും? ഇന്നവൾ പാതിപ്രായക്കാരിയല്ല. മദ്ധ്യവയസ്ക്ക ആയിരിക്കാം. വരുമാനമൊന്നുമില്ലെങ്കിൽ അവൾ എന്തുചെയ്യും?
പൌരസ്ത്യ സഭകളുടെ കാനോനകൾ 503: 1. “ആശ്രമാത്തിൽനിന്ന് നിയമപ്രകാരം വിട്ടുപോവുകയോ അതിൽനിന്നു നിയമാനുസൃതം പുറത്താക്കപ്പെടുകയോ ചെയ്യുന്ന ആൾക്ക് താൻ അവിടെ ചെയ്ത ഏതെങ്കിലും സേവനത്തെപ്രതി അവിടെനിന്ന് ഒന്നും ആവശ്യപ്പെടാനാവുന്നതല്ല.”
2. “എങ്കിലും ആശ്രമം അതിൽനിന്നു വേർപിരിഞ്ഞ ആളുടെനേരെ ഉചിതവും സുവിശേഷാത്മകവുമായ ഉപവി കാണിക്കണം.”
മഠത്തിൽനിന്നു പുറത്താക്കപ്പെടുന്നവർക്കും സ്വമനസ്സാ പുറത്തേയ്ക്ക് പോകുന്നവർക്കും പ്രതിഫലത്തിനോ നഷ്ടപരിഹാരത്തിനോ അർഹത ഇല്ലന്ന് കാനോന വ്യക്തമായി പറയുന്നു. ഈ കാനോനയിൽ യേശുവിൻറെ സ്നേഹത്തിൻറെ അരൂപി തൊട്ടുതേച്ചിട്ടില്ലന്ന് വ്യക്തമാണ്. കൂടാതെ ആശ്രമം ഉപവിക്കു ചേർന്ന വിധത്തിൽ അവരോട് പെരുമാറണമെന്നും ഉപദേശിക്കുന്നു. ആ ഉപദേശംകൊണ്ട് എന്താണാവോ ഉദ്ദേശിക്കുന്നത്? വളരെ അവ്യക്തമാണ് ഈ കാനോന.
മഠംവിട്ടുപോകുന്നവരുടെ സാമ്പത്തിക കാര്യങ്ങളെ സംബന്ധിച്ച് മേൽപറഞ്ഞ ഈ ഒരു കാനോന മാത്രമേ ഉള്ളൂ. സഭ വിട്ടുപോകുന്ന കന്യാസ്ത്രികളുടെ ജീവിതബുദ്ധിമുട്ടുകളെപ്പറ്റി സഭ പഠിക്കണം. സഭയുടെ ഔദ്യോഗിക വ്യക്തികൾ അത് മനസ്സിലാക്കണം. വേദനാജനകമായ അവരുടെ ജീവിത സാഹചര്യങ്ങളെ സഭ അറിയണം. അവരുടെ വ്രതങ്ങളിൽനിന്നും ഒഴിവ് നല്കുന്നതുമാത്രം പോരാ അവർക്ക് നിത്യവൃത്തിക്കുള്ള ധനസഹായവും ചെയ്യണം. കന്യാസ്ത്രി ജീവിതത്തിൽനിന്നും അല്മായജീവിതത്തിലേയ്ക്കുള്ള മാറ്റത്തിൽ വന്നുകൂടുന്ന ജീവിതപ്രശ്നങ്ങൾക്ക് പുതിയ മാനങ്ങൾ കണ്ടുപിടിക്കാൻ സഭ സഹായകമാകണം.
സന്ന്യാസം വിട്ടുപോകുന്ന സഹോദരികൾ ഒരു പുതിയ ജീവിതത്തെ കണ്ടുപിടിക്കുമ്പോൾ ചില അത്യാവശ്യകാര്യങ്ങൾ (പാർപ്പിടം, വസ്ത്രം, വീട്ടുപകരണങ്ങൾ, ജോലി, താല്കാലിക ചിലവിനുള്ള കുറെ പണം) ഉടനടി നടക്കേണ്ടതായിട്ടുണ്ട്. കൂടാതെ ദീർഘകാലാടിസ്ഥാനത്തിലും പല കാര്യങ്ങളും നടക്കേണ്ടതായിട്ടുണ്ട്.
1. സ്വന്തം കുടുംബവുമായി പുതിയ ബന്ധം സ്ഥാപിക്കണം.
2. കന്യാസ്ത്രി അവസ്ഥയിൽനിന്നും അല്മായ സ്ത്രീ എന്ന അവസ്ഥയിലേക്കുള്ള മാറ്റത്തെ അംഗീകരിക്കണം.
3. സ്വന്തം ശരീരത്തെയും മനസിനെയും ആരോഗ്യപരമായി സംരക്ഷിക്കണം.
4. ഒരു അല്മായ സ്ത്രീയായി പൊതുജനങ്ങളുടെ മുൻപിൽ പ്രത്യക്ഷപ്പെടാൻ പഠിക്കണം.
5. ലൈംഗികതയേയും ലൈംഗികജീവിതത്തെയും പുതുതായി കണ്ടുപിടിക്കണം.
6. വിശ്വസ്ഥരായ പുതിയ സുഹൃത്തുക്കളെ കണ്ടെത്തണം.
7. അനുദിന ജീവിതത്തിനുതകുന്ന സമയനടപടിക്രമം ശീലിക്കണം.
8. സാധാരണക്കാരുടെ ജീവിതത്തെ ആശ്ലേഷിക്കാൻ പഠിക്കണം.
9. സ്ത്രീപുരുഷന്മാരുമായി പുതിയ സ്നേഹബന്ധങ്ങൾ സ്ഥാപിച്ചെടുക്കണം.
10. വരുമാനമുള്ള ഒരു ജോലി കണ്ടുപിടിക്കണം.
ചുരുക്കിപറഞ്ഞാൽ മഠം ഉപേക്ഷിക്കുന്ന ഓരോ കന്യാസ്ത്രിക്കും നവമായ ഒരു സ്വയം തിരിച്ചറിവ് ഉണ്ടാകണം.
മഠം ഉപേക്ഷിക്കുന്ന കന്യാസ്ത്രികളുടെ മുഖ്യപ്രശ്നം സഭയുടെ അവരോടുള്ള പെരുമാറ്റമാണ്. അത് എപ്പോഴുംതന്നെ തൃപ്തികരമല്ലാത്തതും അനീതി നിറഞ്ഞതുമാണ്. സഭതന്നെയാണ് ഈ വിഷയത്തിലെ പ്രധാന പ്രശ്നം. അതിൻറെ അനന്തരഫലം വിദൂരമാണ്.
കന്യാസ്ത്രി സന്ന്യസ്തം ഉപേക്ഷിച്ചുപോയാൽ അതല്ലായെങ്കിൽ എന്തെങ്കിലും കാരണങ്ങൾകൊണ്ട് മഠത്തിൽനിന്നും പുറംതള്ളപ്പെട്ടാൽ അവർ ജനിച്ചുവളർന്ന കുടുംബത്തിൽവരെ ചെന്നുപറ്റാനുള്ള വണ്ടിക്കൂലിമാത്രം കൊടുത്ത് മഠത്തിൻറെ പടിയിറക്കിവിടുന്നത് അതിക്രൂരമല്ലേ? എന്നാൽ കേരളത്തിലെ കത്തോലിക്കാ സഭകളിൽ ഇന്നതാണ് നടക്കുന്നത്.
ഓരോ കന്യാസ്ത്രിയുടെയും പ്രായം, വിദ്യാഭ്യാസം, നിലവാരം, ജോലിസാധ്യത, ആരോഗ്യം, മാനസികവും ശാരീരികവും ആധ്യാത്മികവുമായ അവസ്ഥ, കുടുംബത്തിൽനിന്നുള്ള സഹായം തുടങ്ങിയ കാര്യങ്ങൾ ധനസഹായത്തിന് വിലയിരുത്തപ്പെടണം. പൌരോഹിത്യവും കന്യാസ്ത്രിജീവിതവും ഉപേക്ഷിച്ചുപോകുന്ന വ്യക്തികളുടെ നിലനില്പിനായി ട്രസ്റ്റ് ഫണ്ട് സ്ഥാപിക്കണം. 1965 മുതൽ പാശ്ചാത്യ രാജ്യങ്ങളിലും ആസ്റ്റ്രേലിയായിലുമെല്ലാം മഠംവിട്ടുപോകുന്ന കന്യാസ്ത്രികൾക്ക് ധനസഹായം ചെയ്യാനായി ട്രസ്റ്റ് ഫണ്ടുകൾ സ്ഥാപിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. പുറംലോകത്തുള്ള അവരുടെ ജീവിതത്തെ കെട്ടിപ്പടുക്കാൻ അത് സഹായകമാകുന്നുണ്ട്. സഭവിട്ടുപോകുന്ന സഹോദരികളെ സഹായിക്കാൻ അവർ ആയിരുന്ന സമൂഹത്തിന് കടമയുണ്ട്. അവർ പോകുന്നതിൻറെ കാരണം ഇക്കാര്യത്തിൽ പ്രസക്തമല്ല. അപ്രകാരം ആ സമൂഹം അവരോട് പെരുമാറിയില്ലങ്കിൽ ആ സഹോദരികൾക്ക് നീതി ലഭിക്കുന്നില്ല. സഭാധികാരികളുടെ തീരുമാനങ്ങൾ പലപ്പോഴും നല്ലതോ, ബുധിപൂർവമൊ ന്യായീകരിക്കത്തക്കതോ ആയിരിക്കണമെന്നില്ല. പിരിഞ്ഞുപോകുന്ന കന്യാസ്ത്രികളെ എല്ലാ തലങ്ങളിലും പ്രത്യേകിച്ച് സാമ്പത്തികകാര്യങ്ങളിൽ സഹായിക്കാൻ തയ്യാറാകാത്തത് കഷ്ടമാണ്. മഠങ്ങളിൽനിന്നുള്ള ധനസഹായമോ സാമ്പത്തിക വായ്പ ലഭിക്കാതിരിക്കുകയോ മറ്റ് ബുദ്ധിമുട്ടുകളിൽ സഹായഹസ്തം ഇല്ലാതിരിക്കുകയോ ചെയ്താൽ ആ കന്യാസ്ത്രിയുടെ മഠത്തിൽനിന്നുള്ള പോക്ക് ഗുരുതരമായ ഒരവസ്ഥയിൽ ചെന്നവസാനിക്കും. സന്ന്യാസത്തിൽനിന്ന് സാധാരണ ജീവിതത്തിലേക്കുള്ള മാറ്റത്തിന് സഹായകമാകുന്നതൊന്നും ഇന്ന് മഠങ്ങൾ ചെയ്യുന്നില്ല. കാരണം വ്യക്തമാക്കാതെ തിരുവസ്ത്രത്തോടെ മഠത്തിൽകയറ്റാതെ ഇറക്കിവിടുന്നത് പച്ച മലയാളത്തിൽ പറഞ്ഞാൽ ശുദ്ധ തെമ്മാടിത്തരമാണ്. ആനപ്പുറത്തിരിക്കുന്നവന് പട്ടിയെ പേടിക്കണ്ടല്ലോ. സഭാധികാരികളുടെ മനസ്സിലിരിപ്പും അതുതന്നെ. ഇക്കാര്യത്തിൽ ഓർഡെറുകളോ കണ്ഗ്രിഗേഷനുകളോ തമ്മിൽ പരസ്പര ധാരണയോ പഠനമോ ഒന്നുമില്ലാത്തത് ഖേദകരം തന്നെ. ഇതു സംബന്ധിച്ച് ലോകവ്യാപകമായ ഒരു ധാരണ കത്തോലിക്കാ സഭയ്ക്ക് ഉണ്ടായിരിക്കേണ്ടതാണ്.
കന്യാസ്ത്രി ജീവിതം ഉപേക്ഷിച്ചുപോകുന്ന സഹോദരികളുടെ നിസഹായാവസ്തയെപ്പറ്റി സഭാധികാരികൾ മനസിലാക്കേണ്ടതാണ്. ഈ വിഷയം അവരുമായി പങ്കുവയ്ക്കുമ്പോൾ സഭയുടെ ഇന്നത്തെ നിലപാടിനാധാരമായ ചില കാര്യങ്ങൾ അവർ പറയാറുണ്ട്. സഭയിൽ ചേരുന്ന കന്യാസ്ത്രികൾക്ക് നിത്യവ്രതവാഗ്ദാനത്തിനുമുൻപ് സഭയിൽനിന്നുപോകാൻ ധാരാളം സമയമുണ്ടായിരുന്നു. കാര്യം ശരിതന്നെ. പക്ഷെ നിത്യവ്രതവാഗ്ദാനാവസരത്തിലും അതിനുശേഷവും ഭാവിയെന്തെന്നും എന്തിലേയ്ക്കാണ് കാലുകുത്തുന്നതെന്നും ആർക്കും അറിയാൻ പാടില്ലന്നുള്ളതാണ് സത്യം. കാലങ്ങൾ കഴിയുമ്പോൾ ചില സഹോദരികൾക്ക് അവരുടെ സന്ന്യാസ ജീവിതം മടുത്തെന്നിരിക്കും. ഇത് സാധാരണ സന്ന്യാസ ജീവിതത്തിൻറെ പരാജയമല്ല; മറിച്ച്, അത് മാനസിക വളർച്ചയുടെ ഭാഗമാണ്. 'ദൈവവിളി' ഇല്ലാതെ മഠങ്ങളിൽ കയറിക്കൂടിയവരാണ് മഠത്തിലെ ജീവിതം ഇട്ടെറിഞ്ഞിട്ടു പോകുന്നതെന്നാണ് മറ്റൊരഭിപ്രായം. എന്താണാവോ ഈ പറയപ്പെടുന്ന ദൈവവിളി? ദൈവവിളി എല്ലാവർക്കുമില്ലേ ഓരോരോ രീതിയിൽ? സാധാരണ വിശ്വാസികളുടെ കണ്ണിൽ പൊടിയിടാൻവേണ്ടി കണ്ടുപിടിച്ച ഒരു തട്ടിപ്പുപദമാണ് ദൈവവിളി എന്ന പദം. ദൈവവിളി ഉണ്ടോ ഇല്ലയോ എന്നതല്ല ഇക്കാര്യത്തിൽ പ്രധാനം. മഠത്തിലെ ഓരോ കന്യാസ്ത്രിയും സ്വന്തം സമൂഹത്തിൻറെ അഭിവൃത്തിക്കായി അഹോരാത്രം പരിശ്രമിച്ചിരുന്നു എന്നതാണ് ഇവിടെ പ്രസക്തം. അപ്പോൾ ഒരു സഹോദരി അവളുടെ സന്ന്യാസ സമൂഹം വിട്ടുപോകാൻ തീരുമാനിച്ചാൽ മാന്യവും പക്ഷപാതരഹിതവും നീതിപൂർവവുമായ പെരുമാറ്റവും കൈയ്യഴിഞ്ഞ സാമ്പത്തിക സഹായവും ആ സഹോദരിയുടെ പുതുജീവിതത്തിലേയ്ക്കുള്ള കാൽവയ്പ്പിന് ആവശ്യമാണ്.
നിത്യവ്രതം വാഗ്ദാനംചെയ്തവർ ഗുരുതരമായ തെറ്റിലകപ്പെട്ടാൽ മാത്രമെ ആശ്രമങ്ങളിൽനിന്നോ മഠങ്ങളിൽനിന്നോ പുറംതള്ളാവൂ എന്ന് കാനോന അനുശാസിക്കുന്നുണ്ട് (കാനോന: 500. 2. 1). കൂടാതെ പുറത്താക്കലിന് മുന്നോടിയായി പുറത്താക്കൽ ഭീഷണിയോടുകൂടിയ രണ്ട് മുന്നറിയിപ്പ് നൽകേണ്ടതുമാണ് (കാനോന: 500. 2. 2). കാനോൻ നിയമത്തിലെ വകുപ്പുകളൊന്നും സന്ന്യാസസഭാധികാരികൾ പലപ്പോഴും നോക്കാറില്ല. ഒരു കന്യാസ്ത്രിയെ പുറംതള്ളണമെന്നവർ തീരുമാനിച്ചാൽ ആ കന്യാസ്ത്രിയെ പുറംതള്ളിയിരിക്കും. പുറംതള്ളപ്പെടുന്ന ഒരു സാധു സ്ത്രീയ്ക്ക് സഭാധികാരത്തോട് പൊരുതി ജയിക്കാൻ നിർവാഹമൊന്നുമില്ല.ഉത്കൃഷ്ടമായ ഒരു ജീവിതാന്തസായി കന്യാസ്ത്രിജീവിതത്തെ കുടുംബക്കാർ കണ്ടിരുന്നെങ്കിൽ മഠമുപേക്ഷിച്ച് വീട്ടിലേയ്ക്ക് തിരികെചെല്ലുബോൾ അവരുടെ പ്രതികരണം എന്തായിരിക്കും? ഇന്നവൾ പാതിപ്രായക്കാരിയല്ല. മദ്ധ്യവയസ്ക്ക ആയിരിക്കാം. വരുമാനമൊന്നുമില്ലെങ്കിൽ അവൾ എന്തുചെയ്യും?
പൌരസ്ത്യ സഭകളുടെ കാനോനകൾ 503: 1. “ആശ്രമാത്തിൽനിന്ന് നിയമപ്രകാരം വിട്ടുപോവുകയോ അതിൽനിന്നു നിയമാനുസൃതം പുറത്താക്കപ്പെടുകയോ ചെയ്യുന്ന ആൾക്ക് താൻ അവിടെ ചെയ്ത ഏതെങ്കിലും സേവനത്തെപ്രതി അവിടെനിന്ന് ഒന്നും ആവശ്യപ്പെടാനാവുന്നതല്ല.”
2. “എങ്കിലും ആശ്രമം അതിൽനിന്നു വേർപിരിഞ്ഞ ആളുടെനേരെ ഉചിതവും സുവിശേഷാത്മകവുമായ ഉപവി കാണിക്കണം.”
മഠത്തിൽനിന്നു പുറത്താക്കപ്പെടുന്നവർക്കും സ്വമനസ്സാ പുറത്തേയ്ക്ക് പോകുന്നവർക്കും പ്രതിഫലത്തിനോ നഷ്ടപരിഹാരത്തിനോ അർഹത ഇല്ലന്ന് കാനോന വ്യക്തമായി പറയുന്നു. ഈ കാനോനയിൽ യേശുവിൻറെ സ്നേഹത്തിൻറെ അരൂപി തൊട്ടുതേച്ചിട്ടില്ലന്ന് വ്യക്തമാണ്. കൂടാതെ ആശ്രമം ഉപവിക്കു ചേർന്ന വിധത്തിൽ അവരോട് പെരുമാറണമെന്നും ഉപദേശിക്കുന്നു. ആ ഉപദേശംകൊണ്ട് എന്താണാവോ ഉദ്ദേശിക്കുന്നത്? വളരെ അവ്യക്തമാണ് ഈ കാനോന.
മഠംവിട്ടുപോകുന്നവരുടെ സാമ്പത്തിക കാര്യങ്ങളെ സംബന്ധിച്ച് മേൽപറഞ്ഞ ഈ ഒരു കാനോന മാത്രമേ ഉള്ളൂ. സഭ വിട്ടുപോകുന്ന കന്യാസ്ത്രികളുടെ ജീവിതബുദ്ധിമുട്ടുകളെപ്പറ്റി സഭ പഠിക്കണം. സഭയുടെ ഔദ്യോഗിക വ്യക്തികൾ അത് മനസ്സിലാക്കണം. വേദനാജനകമായ അവരുടെ ജീവിത സാഹചര്യങ്ങളെ സഭ അറിയണം. അവരുടെ വ്രതങ്ങളിൽനിന്നും ഒഴിവ് നല്കുന്നതുമാത്രം പോരാ അവർക്ക് നിത്യവൃത്തിക്കുള്ള ധനസഹായവും ചെയ്യണം. കന്യാസ്ത്രി ജീവിതത്തിൽനിന്നും അല്മായജീവിതത്തിലേയ്ക്കുള്ള മാറ്റത്തിൽ വന്നുകൂടുന്ന ജീവിതപ്രശ്നങ്ങൾക്ക് പുതിയ മാനങ്ങൾ കണ്ടുപിടിക്കാൻ സഭ സഹായകമാകണം.
സന്ന്യാസം വിട്ടുപോകുന്ന സഹോദരികൾ ഒരു പുതിയ ജീവിതത്തെ കണ്ടുപിടിക്കുമ്പോൾ ചില അത്യാവശ്യകാര്യങ്ങൾ (പാർപ്പിടം, വസ്ത്രം, വീട്ടുപകരണങ്ങൾ, ജോലി, താല്കാലിക ചിലവിനുള്ള കുറെ പണം) ഉടനടി നടക്കേണ്ടതായിട്ടുണ്ട്. കൂടാതെ ദീർഘകാലാടിസ്ഥാനത്തിലും പല കാര്യങ്ങളും നടക്കേണ്ടതായിട്ടുണ്ട്.
1. സ്വന്തം കുടുംബവുമായി പുതിയ ബന്ധം സ്ഥാപിക്കണം.
2. കന്യാസ്ത്രി അവസ്ഥയിൽനിന്നും അല്മായ സ്ത്രീ എന്ന അവസ്ഥയിലേക്കുള്ള മാറ്റത്തെ അംഗീകരിക്കണം.
3. സ്വന്തം ശരീരത്തെയും മനസിനെയും ആരോഗ്യപരമായി സംരക്ഷിക്കണം.
4. ഒരു അല്മായ സ്ത്രീയായി പൊതുജനങ്ങളുടെ മുൻപിൽ പ്രത്യക്ഷപ്പെടാൻ പഠിക്കണം.
5. ലൈംഗികതയേയും ലൈംഗികജീവിതത്തെയും പുതുതായി കണ്ടുപിടിക്കണം.
6. വിശ്വസ്ഥരായ പുതിയ സുഹൃത്തുക്കളെ കണ്ടെത്തണം.
7. അനുദിന ജീവിതത്തിനുതകുന്ന സമയനടപടിക്രമം ശീലിക്കണം.
8. സാധാരണക്കാരുടെ ജീവിതത്തെ ആശ്ലേഷിക്കാൻ പഠിക്കണം.
9. സ്ത്രീപുരുഷന്മാരുമായി പുതിയ സ്നേഹബന്ധങ്ങൾ സ്ഥാപിച്ചെടുക്കണം.
10. വരുമാനമുള്ള ഒരു ജോലി കണ്ടുപിടിക്കണം.
ചുരുക്കിപറഞ്ഞാൽ മഠം ഉപേക്ഷിക്കുന്ന ഓരോ കന്യാസ്ത്രിക്കും നവമായ ഒരു സ്വയം തിരിച്ചറിവ് ഉണ്ടാകണം.
മഠം ഉപേക്ഷിക്കുന്ന കന്യാസ്ത്രികളുടെ മുഖ്യപ്രശ്നം സഭയുടെ അവരോടുള്ള പെരുമാറ്റമാണ്. അത് എപ്പോഴുംതന്നെ തൃപ്തികരമല്ലാത്തതും അനീതി നിറഞ്ഞതുമാണ്. സഭതന്നെയാണ് ഈ വിഷയത്തിലെ പ്രധാന പ്രശ്നം. അതിൻറെ അനന്തരഫലം വിദൂരമാണ്.
കന്യാസ്ത്രി സന്ന്യസ്തം ഉപേക്ഷിച്ചുപോയാൽ അതല്ലായെങ്കിൽ എന്തെങ്കിലും കാരണങ്ങൾകൊണ്ട് മഠത്തിൽനിന്നും പുറംതള്ളപ്പെട്ടാൽ അവർ ജനിച്ചുവളർന്ന കുടുംബത്തിൽവരെ ചെന്നുപറ്റാനുള്ള വണ്ടിക്കൂലിമാത്രം കൊടുത്ത് മഠത്തിൻറെ പടിയിറക്കിവിടുന്നത് അതിക്രൂരമല്ലേ? എന്നാൽ കേരളത്തിലെ കത്തോലിക്കാ സഭകളിൽ ഇന്നതാണ് നടക്കുന്നത്.
ഓരോ കന്യാസ്ത്രിയുടെയും പ്രായം, വിദ്യാഭ്യാസം, നിലവാരം, ജോലിസാധ്യത, ആരോഗ്യം, മാനസികവും ശാരീരികവും ആധ്യാത്മികവുമായ അവസ്ഥ, കുടുംബത്തിൽനിന്നുള്ള സഹായം തുടങ്ങിയ കാര്യങ്ങൾ ധനസഹായത്തിന് വിലയിരുത്തപ്പെടണം. പൌരോഹിത്യവും കന്യാസ്ത്രിജീവിതവും ഉപേക്ഷിച്ചുപോകുന്ന വ്യക്തികളുടെ നിലനില്പിനായി ട്രസ്റ്റ് ഫണ്ട് സ്ഥാപിക്കണം. 1965 മുതൽ പാശ്ചാത്യ രാജ്യങ്ങളിലും ആസ്റ്റ്രേലിയായിലുമെല്ലാം മഠംവിട്ടുപോകുന്ന കന്യാസ്ത്രികൾക്ക് ധനസഹായം ചെയ്യാനായി ട്രസ്റ്റ് ഫണ്ടുകൾ സ്ഥാപിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. പുറംലോകത്തുള്ള അവരുടെ ജീവിതത്തെ കെട്ടിപ്പടുക്കാൻ അത് സഹായകമാകുന്നുണ്ട്. സഭവിട്ടുപോകുന്ന സഹോദരികളെ സഹായിക്കാൻ അവർ ആയിരുന്ന സമൂഹത്തിന് കടമയുണ്ട്. അവർ പോകുന്നതിൻറെ കാരണം ഇക്കാര്യത്തിൽ പ്രസക്തമല്ല. അപ്രകാരം ആ സമൂഹം അവരോട് പെരുമാറിയില്ലങ്കിൽ ആ സഹോദരികൾക്ക് നീതി ലഭിക്കുന്നില്ല. സഭാധികാരികളുടെ തീരുമാനങ്ങൾ പലപ്പോഴും നല്ലതോ, ബുധിപൂർവമൊ ന്യായീകരിക്കത്തക്കതോ ആയിരിക്കണമെന്നില്ല. പിരിഞ്ഞുപോകുന്ന കന്യാസ്ത്രികളെ എല്ലാ തലങ്ങളിലും പ്രത്യേകിച്ച് സാമ്പത്തികകാര്യങ്ങളിൽ സഹായിക്കാൻ തയ്യാറാകാത്തത് കഷ്ടമാണ്. മഠങ്ങളിൽനിന്നുള്ള ധനസഹായമോ സാമ്പത്തിക വായ്പ ലഭിക്കാതിരിക്കുകയോ മറ്റ് ബുദ്ധിമുട്ടുകളിൽ സഹായഹസ്തം ഇല്ലാതിരിക്കുകയോ ചെയ്താൽ ആ കന്യാസ്ത്രിയുടെ മഠത്തിൽനിന്നുള്ള പോക്ക് ഗുരുതരമായ ഒരവസ്ഥയിൽ ചെന്നവസാനിക്കും. സന്ന്യാസത്തിൽനിന്ന് സാധാരണ ജീവിതത്തിലേക്കുള്ള മാറ്റത്തിന് സഹായകമാകുന്നതൊന്നും ഇന്ന് മഠങ്ങൾ ചെയ്യുന്നില്ല. കാരണം വ്യക്തമാക്കാതെ തിരുവസ്ത്രത്തോടെ മഠത്തിൽകയറ്റാതെ ഇറക്കിവിടുന്നത് പച്ച മലയാളത്തിൽ പറഞ്ഞാൽ ശുദ്ധ തെമ്മാടിത്തരമാണ്. ആനപ്പുറത്തിരിക്കുന്നവന് പട്ടിയെ പേടിക്കണ്ടല്ലോ. സഭാധികാരികളുടെ മനസ്സിലിരിപ്പും അതുതന്നെ. ഇക്കാര്യത്തിൽ ഓർഡെറുകളോ കണ്ഗ്രിഗേഷനുകളോ തമ്മിൽ പരസ്പര ധാരണയോ പഠനമോ ഒന്നുമില്ലാത്തത് ഖേദകരം തന്നെ. ഇതു സംബന്ധിച്ച് ലോകവ്യാപകമായ ഒരു ധാരണ കത്തോലിക്കാ സഭയ്ക്ക് ഉണ്ടായിരിക്കേണ്ടതാണ്.
കന്യാസ്ത്രി ജീവിതം ഉപേക്ഷിച്ചുപോകുന്ന സഹോദരികളുടെ നിസഹായാവസ്തയെപ്പറ്റി സഭാധികാരികൾ മനസിലാക്കേണ്ടതാണ്. ഈ വിഷയം അവരുമായി പങ്കുവയ്ക്കുമ്പോൾ സഭയുടെ ഇന്നത്തെ നിലപാടിനാധാരമായ ചില കാര്യങ്ങൾ അവർ പറയാറുണ്ട്. സഭയിൽ ചേരുന്ന കന്യാസ്ത്രികൾക്ക് നിത്യവ്രതവാഗ്ദാനത്തിനുമുൻപ് സഭയിൽനിന്നുപോകാൻ ധാരാളം സമയമുണ്ടായിരുന്നു. കാര്യം ശരിതന്നെ. പക്ഷെ നിത്യവ്രതവാഗ്ദാനാവസരത്തിലും അതിനുശേഷവും ഭാവിയെന്തെന്നും എന്തിലേയ്ക്കാണ് കാലുകുത്തുന്നതെന്നും ആർക്കും അറിയാൻ പാടില്ലന്നുള്ളതാണ് സത്യം. കാലങ്ങൾ കഴിയുമ്പോൾ ചില സഹോദരികൾക്ക് അവരുടെ സന്ന്യാസ ജീവിതം മടുത്തെന്നിരിക്കും. ഇത് സാധാരണ സന്ന്യാസ ജീവിതത്തിൻറെ പരാജയമല്ല; മറിച്ച്, അത് മാനസിക വളർച്ചയുടെ ഭാഗമാണ്. 'ദൈവവിളി' ഇല്ലാതെ മഠങ്ങളിൽ കയറിക്കൂടിയവരാണ് മഠത്തിലെ ജീവിതം ഇട്ടെറിഞ്ഞിട്ടു പോകുന്നതെന്നാണ് മറ്റൊരഭിപ്രായം. എന്താണാവോ ഈ പറയപ്പെടുന്ന ദൈവവിളി? ദൈവവിളി എല്ലാവർക്കുമില്ലേ ഓരോരോ രീതിയിൽ? സാധാരണ വിശ്വാസികളുടെ കണ്ണിൽ പൊടിയിടാൻവേണ്ടി കണ്ടുപിടിച്ച ഒരു തട്ടിപ്പുപദമാണ് ദൈവവിളി എന്ന പദം. ദൈവവിളി ഉണ്ടോ ഇല്ലയോ എന്നതല്ല ഇക്കാര്യത്തിൽ പ്രധാനം. മഠത്തിലെ ഓരോ കന്യാസ്ത്രിയും സ്വന്തം സമൂഹത്തിൻറെ അഭിവൃത്തിക്കായി അഹോരാത്രം പരിശ്രമിച്ചിരുന്നു എന്നതാണ് ഇവിടെ പ്രസക്തം. അപ്പോൾ ഒരു സഹോദരി അവളുടെ സന്ന്യാസ സമൂഹം വിട്ടുപോകാൻ തീരുമാനിച്ചാൽ മാന്യവും പക്ഷപാതരഹിതവും നീതിപൂർവവുമായ പെരുമാറ്റവും കൈയ്യഴിഞ്ഞ സാമ്പത്തിക സഹായവും ആ സഹോദരിയുടെ പുതുജീവിതത്തിലേയ്ക്കുള്ള കാൽവയ്പ്പിന് ആവശ്യമാണ്.
മഠത്തിലെ സന്ന്യാസജീവിതവുമായി പോരുത്തപ്പെട്ടുപോകാൻ സാധിക്കാത്തവരാണ് പുറത്തുപോകുന്നത്. അതുകൊണ്ട് അവർക്ക് വേണ്ട സഹായങ്ങൾ മഠാധികാരികൾ ചെയ്തുകൊടുക്കണമെന്നുള്ള ഉത്തരവാദിത്വത്തിൽനിന്ന് അവരെ ഒഴിവാക്കുന്നില്ല. മഠത്തിന് സഹായിക്കാൻ സാധിക്കുമോ ഇല്ലയോ എന്നതല്ലാ ഇവിടെ പ്രശ്നം. പോകുന്ന വ്യക്തിക്ക് ജീവസന്ധാരണത്തിനുള്ള വരുമാനമുണ്ടോ എന്നതാണ് പ്രശ്നം. സീറോ മലബാർ സഭ ഇന്ന് നികുതി കൊടുക്കാത്ത (not for profit) കേരളത്തിലെ ഏറ്റവും സമ്പന്നമായ ഒരു സംഘടനയാണ്. അതിൻറെ സ്വത്ത് കണക്കുകൂട്ടാൻ സൂപ്പർ കമ്പ്യൂട്ടർ തന്നെ വേണം. ആസ്ഥിതിക്ക് പട്ടവും സന്ന്യാസവും ഉപേക്ഷിക്കുന്നവരെ സഹായിക്കാൻ സഭയ്ക്ക് യാതൊരു പ്രയാസവുമില്ല. അതിനുള്ള നന്മനസ് മാത്രം ഉണ്ടായാൽ മതി. സാമൂഹ്യനീതിയെ അടിസ്ഥാനപ്പെടുത്തി പരിതാപകരമായ ഇന്നത്തെ സ്ഥിതിയെ തിരുത്താനും അതിനുള്ള പരിഹാരമാർഗം കണ്ടുപിടിക്കാനും സീറോ മലബാർ സഭയ്ക്ക് നിഷ്പ്രയാസം സാധിക്കും. ഈ കാര്യത്തിനു മാത്രമായി സഭ ഒരു ചർച്ച് ഫണ്ട് രൂപീകരിക്കേണ്ടതാണ്.
ചുരുക്കി പറഞ്ഞാൽ അതിനുള്ള ഒരു വീക്ഷണവും മൂല്ല്യബോധവും നന്മനസും അതിനായി മുതൽകൂട്ടും ഉണ്ടായാൽ മതി. ഒന്നാമതായി സീറോ മലബാർ കത്തോലിക്കാ സഭ വൈദികരുടെയും കന്യാസ്ത്രികളുടെയും സേവനങ്ങളെ വിലമതിച്ച് വിലയിരുത്തണം. അതിൻപ്രകാരം സേവനം ഉപേക്ഷിച്ച് പോകുന്നവർക്ക് ജീവസന്ധാരണത്തിനുള്ള സാമ്പത്തിക സഹായം ചെയ്യണം. രണ്ടാമതായി അവരെ ദീർഘകാലാടിസ്ഥാനത്തിൽ സാമ്പത്തികമായി സഹായിക്കാൻ ഒരു എൻഡോവ്മെൻറ് ഫണ്ട് സ്വരൂപിക്കണം. മൂന്നാമതായി ഈ എൻഡോവ്മെൻറ് ഫണ്ട് വേണ്ടവിധത്തിൽ കൈകാര്യം ചെയ്യാൻ ഉത്തരവാദപ്പെട്ട ഒരു സമതി രൂപീകരിക്കണം. പാശ്ചാത്യരാജ്യങ്ങളിൽ കന്യാസ്ത്രികളുടെ റിട്ടയർമെൻറ്റിലേയ്ക്കായി ഫണ്ടുകൾ സ്വരൂപിച്ച് അവരെ വാർദ്ധക്യത്തിൽ സഹായിക്കുന്നുണ്ട്. ഇടവകകളിൽനിന്നുപോലും ആ ഫണ്ടിലേയ്ക്കുള്ള ധനസഹായാഭ്യർത്ഥനകൾ നടത്താറുണ്ട്. എന്തുകൊണ്ട് സീറോ മലബാർ സഭയ്ക്കും ആ വഴിയെ ചിന്തിച്ചുകൂടാ? ഈ ഫണ്ട് സീറോ മലബാർ സഭയുടെ മൊത്തത്തിലുള്ളതായിരിക്കണം. സ്വതന്ത്രമായ ഒരു സമതിയുടെ നിയന്ത്രണത്തിലായിരിക്കണം. മതിയായ തുക ഈ ഫണ്ടിലുണ്ടായിരിക്കണം. ഈ സമതിയിൽ പരിചയ സമ്പത്തുള്ളവരും സത്യസന്ധരും പ്രത്യേക പരിശീലനം നേടിയിട്ടുള്ളവരും പ്രഗത്ഭരുമായ വൈദികരും സന്ന്യസ്ഥരും അല്മായരും ഉണ്ടായിരിക്കണം. ഫണ്ട് വിവേകപൂർവം കൈകാര്യം ചെയ്യണം. അർഹതപ്പെട്ടവർക്ക് നീതിയുക്തമായ രീതിയിൽ ഈ ഫണ്ടിൽനിന്നും സാമ്പത്തിക സഹായം ചെയ്യണം. ഫണ്ട് ദാനമായോ ലോണായോ നല്കാൻ സാധിക്കണം. ഫണ്ടിൻറെ കൈകാര്യകത്രിത്വം സുതാര്യമായിരിക്കണം. സഭയിൽനിന്നുള്ള സംഭാവന, ആശ്രമങ്ങളിൽനിന്നുള്ള സംഭാവന, മഠങ്ങളിൽനിന്നുള്ള സംഭാവന, ഇടവകകളിൽനിന്നുള്ള സംഭാവന, സമ്പന്നരായ വ്യക്തികളിൽനിന്നുള്ള സംഭാവന എല്ലാം ഈ ഫണ്ടിൻറെ മുതൽ കൂട്ടിന് ഉപയോഗപ്പെടുത്തണം.
പോയ, പോകാനിരിക്കുന്ന സന്ന്യസ്ഥരുടെയും പുരോഹിതരുടെയും സാമ്പത്തികവും മറ്റ് പല തരത്തിലുമുള്ള ബുദ്ധിമുട്ടുകളെ ആധാരമാക്കി അതിനുള്ള നിവാരണമാർഗത്തിലേയ്ക്കുള്ള ഒരു വിരൽ ചൂണ്ടലാണ് ഈ ലേഖനം. ഈ വിഷയത്തെ സംബന്ധിച്ച് സഭാധികാരികൾ , പുരോഹിതർ, കന്യാസ്ത്രികൾ, സഭാപൌരർ തുടങ്ങിയവരിൽനിന്നുള്ള പ്രതികരണങ്ങൾ പ്രതിക്ഷിക്കുന്നു.
Please see pictures from Almaya Sabdam:http://almayasabdam.blogspot.com/2015/03/blog-post_41.html
 |
| Fr.Shibu |
 |
| Sr.Anita |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)