Re: Addendum To My Message #31080
- Dear Eapen,
Am impressed by the legal points you have brought about in your message. I am sure that the lawyer who appeared for our church must have definitely put his best; but probably his expertise was not enough to save the situation. Putting the past behind, and without introducing any ego issues; it is the duty of all concerned (probably all of us) to secure the best legal support available at-least hereafter.
We had many such failures not just in Kolencherry alone but in Kandanad, Puthencruz and many more places as well. And a failure is a failure. Why is it that we are stumbling on our own failures again and again ? Leaving out the ego problems, we may need to revamp our legal team, and work together for the common good of the church. Probably Mr. Eapen can also be a member of our team. Aren't we in touch with Adv FS Nariman who presented our case before the SC; he may be a good person to guide us in this.
This legal failure, is one of the many failures we have in our church administration, due to the lack of professionalism, in most of the church organizations and institutions. This is not to point fingers, but to realize for ourselves that, we have suffered a lot in many fronts in the last 10 or 20 years due to our unprofessional approach; but I guess and hope that we have already passed the trough.
Abey Jacob, Bangalore.
- - Mr. Nakkolackal V. L. Eapen, Austin wrote: <I am dismayed at our Legal Team's failure to submit to the Hon. High Court Bench that the Orthodox Church has legal reservations about the proposed settlement of the Kolenchery issue through compromise. (i) Such a settlement outside the provisions of the 1934 Constitution would be 'ultra vires' or illegal, being beyond the powers conferred on the Orthodox Church by its Constitution, approved by the Supreme Court of India; (ii) It would also be tantamount to acting under coercion, in unintentional CONTEMPT, of the SC's written directives to be a United Church under the 1934 Constitution; and (iii) Having acted in CONTEMPT of the SC's written directives of above reference, and formed themselves into a dissident church with a NEW Constitution, the Jacobites have NO legally enforceable claim against the Orthodox Church as to the sharing of the main church or its chapel at Kolenchery to conduct its worship services. Such sharing would be a travesty of justice.>
I am not sure as to how many of us remember this - but there was a time when the Ministry of Human Empowerment (MOHE) went globe-trotting for enlisting the details of eminent persons in the MOSC. I do not know whether Mr. Nakkolackal VL Eapen got included within this list. (I was not, and wouldn't have preferred even if I deserved.) I am of the view that creation of such lists do more harm than good - both temporally and spiritually as well.
Anyway, with the kind of great advise (sampled above) that you have been giving of late, it is truly unfortunate that you are not playing a more hands-on role in putting the MOSC back on the right tracks. Frankly, if I had my way, you and your wife would have already got an all-expense-paid invitation from Devalokam to stay there for at least 2-3 months to oversee (and streamline) the legal tangles that we find ourselves in.
But then, who cares to listen to us, Mr. Eapen? Indeed, rightfully does St. Matthew 13:57 state as follows - 'And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor."
Yours in Christ!
John Jacob, Pune