'A Reply to the arguements of V Geevarghese Mathew' -3
- This message is the third part of my reply to one V. Geevarghese Mathew, Alwaye, who says that he is directly or indirectly related to the Vayaliparambil family.
Now on the other major points argued by this so-called V. Geevarghese Mathew, Alwaye. He in his message mentioned about a discussion in India Vision channel held in the news night session of 25th January 2008 on the Thrikkunnathu episode. This channel had presented an interview with Elias Mor Athanasius thirumeni and at the same time discussed with George Muthoot of IOC also. In between, George Muthoot in his own style, alleged that we (jacobites) are after foreigners (read bishops and patriarchs) and this is not a sensible or correct thing etc.; but at the very next moment he also claimed ownership of our major institutions like Manjinikkara Dayara. On hearing this Elias Mor Athanasius Thirumeni politely asked what morality did IOC have when they call our bishops as foreigners and at the same time make claim for the ownership of our institutions like Manjinikkara dayra which is famous only for the tomb of a "foreign Church head". The whole discussion was very good. Naturally many IOC persons, may have been irritated because of their failure in discussions in an open TV channel. This situation may have compelled V. Geevarghese Mathew to argue in an IOC forum the next day that it was possible for the late Catholicose of IOC to appoint a representative to Manjinikkara after the unity of 1958 and thus make a claim of that dayara, but has not done that considering only the peace.
On reading this I asked myself about the truth in this. First of all does this so-called V. Geevarghese Mathew have ever thought about the validity of adharams of this manjinikkara dayara. If he doesnt know let him first understand that the place where Patriarch Elias III was entombed and the dayara, are properties registered in the names of the Antiochean patriarchate from 1930s and it was sold/donated by the Elavinamannil family, the palampadom family and the Kallooparambil family. It is these lands that are now resting with the dayara. So I cant understand how any Catholicose could send a representative to that dayra that belongs to the holy Patriarchate at that time.
Of course I am not denying that even if there is no legal authority, one can send a person as representative and claim it to be theirs, such as IOC send to our Vettikkal seminary or Kottayam St. Josephs Cathedral or Ernakulam Soonoro Church from late 1990s. Of course the long standing legal dispute at Kunnamkulam Simhasana Church is only because of the claim made by the former IOC leadership in late 1950s and early 1960s. The case is still pending in courts and as per the latest judgment, IOC Catholicos or anyone of his supporters cannot claim the church or its property as it belongs to the Antiochean Simhasanam. Similarly there are cases against other simhasana churches like that at pampady and kottayam. Some of these have gone upto Supreme Court, but IOC failed. All this shows that IOC was doing all sorts of methods to get hold of the Jacobite Church properties wherever possible. Again if V. Geevarghese Mathew still has no idea about all this, please spend time to recheck.
Now let me try to answer one of the last arguments by this so-called V. Geevarghese Mathew. He says that IOC is not after money and it is wrong to say that IOC is trying to grab Thrikkunnath seminary eyeing its wealth. He is also adding that at present this Thrikkunnath seminary is run with the money from his catholicate office at Devalokam. Since I am not aware about the present financial situation of the seminary, I am not a person to answer whether they use money from devalokam Catholciate office to run seminary or not.
But one thing I am sure is that IOC from its former IOC bishops period (from 1970s) has utilized the seminary property the maximum to extract maximum money from it. Thrikkunnath Seminary was like a milking cow for IOC. They extracted it the maximum. While the previous metropolitans who were in Thrikkunnathu seminary tried to develop the seminary property by constructing many buildings and acquiring properties, those in post-1970 period, have only mortgaged or sold major portion of these properties that belonged to seminary. Now the extent of seminary property is much smaller. In addition to these the income from rubber cultivation were also not properly audited for many many years. This is not which I, or one in my church is alleging; it is what alleged by IOC leadership and Mannaraprayil achen who was once a pet of IOC leaders. But Mannarprayil achen has said that his hands are neat and it is other persons in IOC who misused the money that belonged to the seminary. He has also publicized a long letter in 2005 with a detailed list of income and expenditure and bank balance of thrikkunnath seminary. In that letter he also had indirectly apologized whereby admitting that the Thrikkunnath pally and seminary were actually the properties of the Jacobite Church and it was taken over and handed over to IOC in 1970s.
So from these arguments and counter allegations it is clear that IOC people, whoever may be, were extracting/misusing the seminary income for selfish interests. This is the situation of the seminary which was a flourishing one at the times of Valya Thirumeni and Vayaliparambil thirumeni, but later on we see only the downfall of the seminary. This is inspite of the rising income from the rubber plantation or the rents that can be received from building constructed in the pre-1970 period or the steep increase in the value of property.
Under these circumstances if the so-called V. Geevarghese Mathew still claims that seminary is not an income generating property for the Devalokam catholicate, then it is those in IOC, who by force and cheating got hold of the seminary property, have to answer.
I know that V. Geevarghese Mathew, who claims to be related to Vayaliparambil family may not be satisfied with my answer. Anyhow let me end this session with this.
T M Chacko,