Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

23194Re: Piravom Settlement

Expand Messages
  • Very Rev. Dr. Mani Rajan Corepiscopo
    May 10, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Moderators

      What is to be read in between lines?

      1. The office bearers of the Piravom church are not consulting the central legal cell.
      2. The signatories of the agreement to allow IOC to stage some declaration is not legally valid and in the wisdom of some others it will end up in further issues.
      3. The legal cell of the Piravom church is acting contrary to wisdom of central legal cell.

      My humble question is – “Are these to be debated in a public forum?” To enlighten the Piravom church office bearers, which is the forum? Is it appropriate to make the office bearers anxious about the chances of failure in the case which will persuade office bearers to consult the central legal cell or to persuade faithful of the Piravom church to turn against their own elected office bearers? - is that the agenda.

      What is collective wisdom?

      I am not referring to any name here which is never my agenda. Kunnamkulam Simhasana church case was initiated in 1959, there were two remand orders since 1959 and now the case is before HC after three judgments from the District court. Somebody was referring to 17 years of case history of Kunnamkulam Simhasana church. It has a long history of 53 years. It is just to clarify that.

      In the SLP before the SC somebody suggested (no names are to be mentioned) that the Church (JSC) will make arrangement to represent for the Simhasana Church cases. Late Mor Osthatheos Bennyamin Joseph thirumeni of blessed memory was firm that there is conflict of interest and it should be represented separately. It is in this context that some documents were not shared with some persons as accused in the posting. One must learn to see others point of view.

      Collective wisdom is not blindly following anybody’s wisdom. Therefore, I have posted what I thought I must seeing repeated postings of the kind. I would like to bring out specific instances to substantiate what I have written but it will not serve the interest of Church, therefore I will not. Autonomy of the churches are to be respected in any case. Anybody can advise! Sorry if my posting insulted anybody which was not my motive.

      Dr. Mani Rajan Cor-episcopo
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic