ETV Bharat / state
വത്തിക്കാന് വീണ്ടും കത്തയച്ച് സിസ്റ്റര്‍ ലൂസി
By
Published : Nov 6, 2019, 3:50 PM IST
മഠത്തിൽ നിന്ന് പുറത്താക്കുകയാണെങ്കിൽ തനിക്ക് ജീവിതമാർഗം കണ്ടെത്തി തരണമെന്നും ഇതുവരെ സഭയെ സേവിച്ചതിനുള്ള പ്രതിഫലം തരണമെന്നും സിസ്റ്റർ ലൂസി കത്തിൽ പറയുന്നു
ലൂസി
വയനാട്: മഠത്തിൽ നിന്ന് പുറത്താക്കിയ നടപടിക്കെതിരെ വയനാട്ടിൽ സിസ്റ്റര്‍ ലൂസി കളപ്പുര വീണ്ടും വത്തിക്കാന് കത്തയച്ചു. സഭക്കെതിരെ രൂക്ഷമായ വിമർശനങ്ങളാണ് സിസ്റ്റർ കത്തിൽ ഉന്നയിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളത്.
പുറത്താക്കിയ നടപടിക്കെതിരെ സി. ലൂസി നേരത്തെ നൽകിയ അപ്പീൽ വത്തിക്കാൻ തള്ളിയിരുന്നു. ഇതിന്‍റെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിലാണ് വീണ്ടും കത്തയച്ചത്. ഭൂമി ഇടപാട് കേസിലും ബലാത്സംഗകേസിലുമെല്ലാം സഭാധികൃതർ ഉൾപ്പെട്ടത് കേരളത്തിൽ കത്തോലിക്കാ സഭയുടെ പ്രതിച്ഛായ തകർത്തിട്ടുണ്ടെന്ന് സി. ലൂസി കത്തിൽ പറയുന്നു.
ഈ സാഹചര്യത്തിൽ കർട്ടനു പിന്നിൽ മറഞ്ഞിരുന്നതുകൊണ്ട് പ്രയോജനമില്ല. ജനങ്ങൾക്കിടയിൽ ഇറങ്ങി പ്രവർത്തിക്കുകയാണ് വേണ്ടത്. താൻ സഭാ നിയമങ്ങൾ ലംഘിച്ചിട്ടില്ല എന്നും കത്തിൽ പറയുന്നു. ഇന്ത്യൻ ഭരണഘടന ഉറപ്പു നൽകുന്ന മൗലികാവകാശങ്ങൾ നിഷേധിക്കരുതെന്നും സിസ്റ്റർ ആവശ്യപ്പെടുന്നുണ്ട്. മഠത്തിൽ നിന്ന് പുറത്താക്കുകയാണെങ്കിൽ തനിക്ക് ജീവിതമാർഗം കണ്ടെത്തി തരണമെന്നും ഇതുവരെ സഭയെ സേവിച്ചതിനുള്ള പ്രതിഫലം തരണമെന്നും കത്തിൽ പറയുന്നു.
വയനാട്: മഠത്തിൽ നിന്ന് പുറത്താക്കിയ നടപടിക്കെതിരെ വയനാട്ടിൽ സിസ്റ്റര്‍ ലൂസി കളപ്പുര വീണ്ടും വത്തിക്കാന് കത്തയച്ചു. സഭക്കെതിരെ രൂക്ഷമായ വിമർശനങ്ങളാണ് സിസ്റ്റർ കത്തിൽ ഉന്നയിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളത്.
പുറത്താക്കിയ നടപടിക്കെതിരെ സി. ലൂസി നേരത്തെ നൽകിയ അപ്പീൽ വത്തിക്കാൻ തള്ളിയിരുന്നു. ഇതിന്‍റെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിലാണ് വീണ്ടും കത്തയച്ചത്. ഭൂമി ഇടപാട് കേസിലും ബലാത്സംഗകേസിലുമെല്ലാം സഭാധികൃതർ ഉൾപ്പെട്ടത് കേരളത്തിൽ കത്തോലിക്കാ സഭയുടെ പ്രതിച്ഛായ തകർത്തിട്ടുണ്ടെന്ന് സി. ലൂസി കത്തിൽ പറയുന്നു.
ഈ സാഹചര്യത്തിൽ കർട്ടനു പിന്നിൽ മറഞ്ഞിരുന്നതുകൊണ്ട് പ്രയോജനമില്ല. ജനങ്ങൾക്കിടയിൽ ഇറങ്ങി പ്രവർത്തിക്കുകയാണ് വേണ്ടത്. താൻ സഭാ നിയമങ്ങൾ ലംഘിച്ചിട്ടില്ല എന്നും കത്തിൽ പറയുന്നു. ഇന്ത്യൻ ഭരണഘടന ഉറപ്പു നൽകുന്ന മൗലികാവകാശങ്ങൾ നിഷേധിക്കരുതെന്നും സിസ്റ്റർ ആവശ്യപ്പെടുന്നുണ്ട്. മഠത്തിൽ നിന്ന് പുറത്താക്കുകയാണെങ്കിൽ തനിക്ക് ജീവിതമാർഗം കണ്ടെത്തി തരണമെന്നും ഇതുവരെ സഭയെ സേവിച്ചതിനുള്ള പ്രതിഫലം തരണമെന്നും കത്തിൽ പറയുന്നു.
Intro:മഠത്തിൽ നിന്ന് പുറത്താക്കിയ നടപടിക്കെതിരെ വയനാട്ടിൽ സി.ലൂസി കളപ്പുര വീണ്ടും വത്തിക്കാന് കത്തയച്ചു. സഭക്കെതിരെ രൂക്ഷമായ വിമർശനങ്ങളാണ് സിസ്റ്റർ കത്തിൽ ഉന്നയിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളത്.Body:പുറത്താക്കിയ നടപടിക്കെതിരെ സി.ലൂസി നേരത്തെ നൽകിയ അപ്പീൽ വത്തിക്കാൻ തള്ളിയിരുന്നു.ഇതിൻ്റെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിലാണ് വീണ്ടും കത്തയച്ചത്.ഭൂമി ഇടപാട് കേസിലും, ബലാൽസംഗകേസിലുമെല്ലാം സഭാധികൃതർ ഉൾപ്പെട്ടത് കേരളത്തിൽ കത്തോലിക്കാ സഭയുടെ പ്രതിച്ഛായ തകർത്തിട്ടുണ്ടെന്ന് സി.ലൂസി കത്തിൽ പറയുന്നു. ഈ സാഹചര്യത്തിൽ കർട്ടനു പിന്നിൽ മറഞ്ഞിരുന്നതുകൊണ്ട് പ്രയോജനമില്ല. ജനങ്ങൾക്കിടയിൽ ഇറങ്ങി പ്രവർത്തിക്കുകയാണ് വേണ്ടത്. താൻ സഭാ നിയമങ്ങൾ ലംഘിച്ചിട്ടില്ല എന്നും സി. കത്തിൽ പറയുന്നു.ഇന്ത്യൻ ഭരണഘടന ഉറപ്പു നൽകുന്ന മൗലികാവകാശങ്ങൾ നിഷേധിക്കരുതെന്നും സി.ആവശ്യപ്പെടുന്നുണ്ട്. മഠത്തിൽ നിന്ന് പുറത്താക്കുകയാണെങ്കിൽ തനിക്ക് ജീവിതമാർഗം കണ്ടെത്തി തരണമെന്നും ഇതുവരെ സഭയെ സേവിച്ചതിനുള്ള പ്രതിഫലം തരണമെന്നും കത്തിൽ പറയുന്നു'Conclusion:From
Sr.Lucy Kalapura
F C Convent
Karakkamala (P O)
Mananthavady,Wayanad Dist.
Kerala,India, 670645.
To
HIS EMINENCE DOMINIQUE
FRANCOIS JOSEPH NAMBERTI
SIGNATURA APOSTOLICA
PALAZZO DELLA CONCELLERIA
PIAZZA DELLA CANCELLERIA 1
00186 ROMA
Subject:
Seeking of Hierarchical Recourse against the
Decree of Rejection from the Congregation For The Oriental Churches
Ref:
1. Prot N.3037 by Apostolic Nuncio dated 11.10.2019
2. Prot N. 93/2002 by Congregation for the Oriental Churches
3.Un authentic English translation of the Decree of Rejection in Latin given by Superior General of FCC Aluva 22.10.2019
Your Eminence,
I. Preliminary submissions
It is submitted, as an overarching principle, that my calling as a member of the Franciscan Clarist Congregation (FCC), and the discipline immanent therein must be deemed as harmonious with my rights and liberties as a human being for the reason that one cannot be a Catholic or a nun without being human. Secondly, it is pleaded that they may also be read, interpreted and applied to my case, as harmonious with my fundamental rights as an Indian citizen as provided for in the Constitution of India. Fundamental rights –that include the right to freedom of movement, freedom of conscience and right to equality of treatment and not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender as well as the right to life with dignity are inalienable. No law enunciated by any authority shall prevail in contravention to fundamental rights for the reason that they are inalienable. In law, they cannot even be renounced permanently by the individual.
It is further urged that the Kerala society is undergoing an unprecedented churning. In part this is due to growing public awareness. In part this is also due to the growing disenchantment with religion, often associated with irrationality, regressive advocacies, and obscurantism. A series of major scandals, including sex and land mafia deals involving church authorities have rocked Kerala in the recent past. In such a context, I do feel, as one committed firmly to the way of Jesus Christ, to play a proactive role, rather than avail myself of the easier option to live ‘peacefully’ behind the curtains of escapism, like the Priest and the Levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan. An impartial and contextually sensitive view of the ill-conceived action initiated against me, bypassing the requirements of natural justice, will convince anyone that old assumptions and posturing will not meet the needs of the present. It is this that has challenged me to respond to my situation as I have in the last couple of years. I hope very fervently that the following submissions I make would be seen and appreciated in this light.
I make bold to hint the aforesaid for the reason that at a distance this context is unlikely to be either noted or reckoned aright. It is a basic dictum in interpretation that everything, to be judged aright, be seen in its context. This is all the more critical in the present instance as the action against me flows directly out of the murky and embarrassing situation that prevails. It doesn’t have to be emphasized that far too often in history that defensive measures that desirable in the short-term prove harmful in the long-term. This comes about from ignoring the specifics of the given context.
I submit therefore that a final decision on my case be undertaken after a commission to study the underlying issues is formed and its report studied in relation to the submissions I make. Anything less, is sure to fall far short of the bottom-line requirements of justice.
Above all, I have to point out that in considering my case by F C C, only rules and regulations have been cited against me. There is not a single reference in this long and detailed document to any biblical principle that I could be alleged to have violated. If I have not incurred any spiritual indiscipline, instead have acted in consonance with my Christian calling, it is most unfortunate that extreme punishment, comparable to capital punishment in the secular context, is sought to be imposed on me. The question that comes up is this: is it possible for one to be a nun and a follower of Jesus Christ at the same time? The concerned authorities will be answering this question one way or another in the way my appeal is dealt with.
II. Specific submissions
Para 1.
It is respectfully submitted that there is a distinction between measures meant to uphold and maintain discipline and those meant to target a member of the Congregation. The latter applies to my case, which is evident from the fact that the charges leveled against me varied from time to time and newer charges as after thoughts were heaped against me. What makes this process strikingly mala fide is that discipline is selectively and arbitrarily imposed on me. Surely, there are nuns and priests in the Catholic Church, for example, who own and drive cars, interact with the media. Nothing in my vocation as a nun of the Franciscan Clarist Congregation prevents me from expressing my God-given gift of creative writing, given that Jesus himself was the sanctified embodiment of creativity. It is reiterated, with utmost clarity of conscience and with God as my witness that I have remained, till date, unwaveringly committed to the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. It is submitted, at the same time, that obedience to such laws as are in force in the Congregation needs to harmonize with my duty to obey God most of all, especially in matters that pertain to the right of the oppressed and the violated for justice, without which no spiritual vocation can be imagined or sustained.
Para 2.
Procedural improprieties abound in the punitive action initiated against me. I am aggrieved that none of my explanations/submissions has been given the attention or consideration they deserved and my explanations have been treated with prejudice, as though the punitive decision against was pre-determined and the mere process of providing me an opportunity to state my case gone through without any intent to give my views any regard. This process of going through with the notion of serving a show cause notice and inviting my explanation has been conducted as a mere formality, without any intention to hear me or to treat me fairly, which smacks of, sad to say, bias and vindictiveness. It is strongly urged that the Provincial General, who initiated this procedure and disciplinary action against me is vitiated by bias, given her proximity and abject loyalty to Bishop Franco Mulakkal. This disqualifies her to be the disciplining authority, as justice and partisanship are incompatible. As a result, a miscarriage of justice was writ large over the entire process to which I have been subjected in this case, as is widely known in Kerala.
Para 3.
(a) It is not denied that I have interacted with non-Catholics. Insistence that a nun should limit her contacts or cooperation to Catholics alone is, in my Christian conscience, tantamount to practicing untouchability which is an offence both against the biblical faith and the Indian Constitution.
(b) It is admitted that I have published poems. I did apply to the Province for permission, which was denied to me without any valid reasons. The Province should have had the magnanimity to encourage the development of a God-given gift and not suppressed it in the name of ‘discipline’. It is submitted that there have been outstanding poets, scientists, thinkers and artists among the Catholic religious. The notion that creativity is sinful is alien to the Catholic vision. So, the suppression of this gift in me seems to me to be only a sign of hostility and prejudice, submitting to which is slavery, not obedience. I insist that I am not guilty of disobedience in this or any other respect.
(c) As regards my income through salaries, it is submitted that every rupee of it used to be deposited with the Province till the end of 2017. Thereafter a change was thrust upon me, when my application for permission (this is my first request for 10000 rupees in 33 years of religious life) to help a near relative of mine, who was in dire need, was made in writing by me to the Province. My application was kept pending, without consideration, for months. Unable to brook the delay without causing serious harm to my relative in distress, I decided to extend financial support. I needed money, again, to pay for my driving license fee. My application in this regard was rejected arbitrarily. There are several nuns who have driving licenses, but none of them has been acted against. I sought permission also to buy a small car, which was envisaged not as a personal facility but as open to other members of the Convent also to use. This being, and finding this facility a bare necessity, given my professional work as a teacher and other circumstances, I had to meet the cost out of my salary. Support from the Province for this purpose was sure to be withheld. I was thus coerced to deviate from my customary practice of letting the Province have my income in toto. It is submitted that I am willing hereon to let the Province have my salary.
(d) The decision of the Province that I should not have a driving license was blatantly arbitrary, as I know several nuns with driving licenses. Arbitrariness of treatment, vitiated by personal animosity, is not ‘disciplinary action’. It is unbecoming of an institution or authority that bears the title ‘Christian’. Disciplinary action needs to be taken against such authorities and individuals. Not reinforcing arbitrariness is, on the other hand, basic to discipline. I have been true to my discipline as a religious in this aspect as well.
(e) Regarding the avoidable controversy about ‘habit and veil’, I have to submit that cloth cannot be more important than character or health. It is spiritually superfluous to be obsessed with ‘what we shall wear’ –as Jesus said- to the detriment of the body. Cotton is, without an argument, more appropriate to the humid climate of Kerala. At any rate synthetic material is allergic to me. It is disappointing that a big issue is made out of this. This makes me worry that ‘habit and veil’ is made to symbolize the subjugation of a nun, than serve as a spiritual aid to the person concerned. As the tragedies of several nuns in Kerala in the recent past prove, habit and veil do not protect them from extreme peril even within the convent.
Para 4.
As regards the various provisions cited in this paragraph, I have to submit that rules and regulations –like religion itself, as Jesus said- are made for human beings, not vice versa. The spiritual mission of Jesus Christ involved the supersession of many laws which were considered sacrosanct by the Jews. If and when rules, formulated in the past, are found to be inimical to the spiritual welfare of believers and the religious, the right thing to do is to review them with the guiding light provided by Jesus himself, “The Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Jesus too faced the ire of the Jews for not complying with rules. The simple fact remains, humanity progresses not by holding on to archaic rules and regulations, but by honouring the freedom of the spirit and personal liberty as given and guaranteed by the Lord Jesus Christ. Also, it is common knowledge that rules and regulations are mere tools. Much depends on with what purpose they are wielded. It is obvious that in my case they are being invoked as means for justifying a decision taken quite apart from them. They are invoked only for purposes of creating a semblance of legitimacy. Christianity is not a religion of rules, but of grace. It is the spirit, not the letter of the law that should govern. If this bottom-line spiritual sensitivity was practised in my case, I would not have had to defend myself for upholding my faith as I have to in the present case.
