Can wearing shorts in Church cause a scandal?

To,

The Bishop of Goa

The President of CBCI,

The President of CCBI,

The Nuncio for India

Dear All,

As Christ’s representative in Goa I definitely admire you for your charm and dexterity  to skirt issues . I had sent an e mail to the Bishop of Goa first on  25/10/2020 asking him what is the dress code in Goa and the meaning of tourist since his man had stopped two catholic persons from attending mass which in my opinion is a grave liturgical abuse. However despite addressing him seven e mails he has not bothered to reply.

The problem is he wants to do things but is not answerable .

Surprisingly the same Bishop of Goa extended all facilities to a gay person who was married to another man and which was reported widely in the press, to be given all church services when he died and the best explanation he gave was   

“In fact, the funeral has not caused any scandal to the public. On the contrary, the requiem service was attended by a large number of parishioners and others. In this situation, the denial of an ecclesiastical funeral would have caused more hurt and scandal to the people than granting it.”

 “We can no longer think that ‘everything is black and white’ and apply moral laws as if they were ‘stones to throw at people’s lives'” (§305).

“It is not about undermining the teaching on sin but putting into practice the merciful pedagogy of God,”

Now since he talks about scandal and public opinion let me ask him if a man wears decent shorts for mass in a church having only 5 people on that day what scandal could be caused ?

Can shorts be used as a stone to throw people out of the church and prevent them from attending mass?

Would shorts undermine Christs teaching on sin and would such a person be not putting into practice the merciful pedagogy of God?

Lastly would Christ behave in the same fashion as the Bishop of Goa ?

Would Christ take action and run away without explanation?

I would be failing in my Christian duty if I don’t point out these issues as we are called to be watchdogs as per Ezekiel Ch 3 verses 17 to 21. Think about the number of people who have suffered in silence due to similar acts.

I have been following up on this issue for almost two years and this is my 8^th e mail . Your silence will make me stronger.

Adv. A.M.Sodder

WHY ANSON THOMAS HAS NO ROOM IN THE INN? Valson Thampu

The author is the ex principal of St. Stephens College New Delhi. Ansom Thomas was India’s hockey goalkeeper….

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Anson Thomas has been orphaned by the Mar Thoma Church. He is now a church-less Christian. That doesn’t mean, however, that he is homeless; for God is the unfailing home of those who seek ‘his Kingdom and righteousness’.
It is significant that Anson’s exclusion from the church happened even as a feature film was being made on his heroic mission in Mumbai, rescuing over 800 women and girls from their hellish red-light degradation. Of this there is no doubt: Anson is, in the mission that he still pursues, emulating the example of Jesus Christ who came to ‘seek and restore the lost’ (Luke 19:10).
Though I have not met Anson till date, I have heard of him through many a Mar Thomite. Not one of them ever referred to him without a word of appreciation for the mission he has been pursuing. So, the question arises:
Why is this very Anson Thomas now churchless? Why doesn’t he have a foothold on the Mar Thoma terrain, of which he has been a native? A similar question is, going back 2000 years, ‘Why was there no room in the inn’ for Mary to have a corner, in the hour of her extreme need and helplessness?
If one who seeks the lost needs to be lost from the church, what does that tell us of the church?
Fr. Robin, who raped and impregnated a teenage girl, and has been found guilty by the court is not expelled from the Catholic Church. Bishop Franko, accused of having raped a nun repeatedly, is still very much a bishop. The Orthodox priests who sexually exploited the wife of a church member and ruined his family are still very much within that church. The Mar Thoma priest who misappropriated, by fraudulent means, crores of rupees cheating an entire congregation is still happily within the Mar Thoma fold which cannot tolerate Anson.
In contrast, Anson is not accused of any moral offence. Then why is he an outcaste in the Mar Thoma Church? Come, let’s think together on this intriguing state of affairs.
Note first: Anson is ‘not guilty’, much like Jesus was 2000 years go. When an innocent person is forced out, howsoever covertly, of the church, the spotlight falls on the church, as it happened through the Crucifixion of Jesus. The Judaic church clamoured for the blood of Jesus when he was pronounced ‘not guilty’ by Pilate. That exposed the Judaic establishment, not Jesus.
Now, here is the relevant historical principle, if you want to understand the ‘Crucify Anson’ plot aright-
Every institution –church being one- is a nucleus of power. Power is formed by people coming together and acting in concert. The power of a priest, a bishop, a Metropolitan is derived from the people who constitute the church. It is to hide this reality that they tom-tom that priestly authority is derived straight from God. This is a colourful lie. Church is an institution. It is run accordingly. As a bishop of the Church of North India told me, ‘I run the church by the constitution, not the Bible’. If you think that a church runs on godliness, not on ‘gold-liness’, you are living on the other side of the Moon.
Now, power arms itself with violence. No power is real, unless it has the right to practise violence. That is because, though power is derived from the people, power does not stay true to the people. Power is inherently hierarchical. Hierarchies exist, mostly, for themselves. When a church is spiritually wholesome and cares for Jesus Christ, it minds the need to sustain the trust of the people. When it becomes worldly, it distances and alienates itself from the people, who are the very soil in which the church stands and is nourished.
As the church hierarchy distances itself from the laity, two things happen. (a) Members of the church hierarchy become obsessed with showcasing their superiority over the laity. They assume the airs of a superior class, entitled to the exclusive right to manipulate the affairs and resources of God. They showcase their class difference through costumes and privileges that, seen outside of the denominational ambience, look quaint and theatrical. (b) They become increasingly insecure as the distance between them and the laity increases. Yet, they need to distance themselves from the laity in order to create a mystique of worldly power and exclusivity about them.
The snowballing insecurity of the hierarchy makes them resort to repressive violence to everything that challenges their authority. The spiritual or ethical motive of the person who doesn’t count. This is evident in the brutality of Herod who massacres infants to lessen his insecurity.
To understand this, consider the Catholic Church’s hyper-eagerness to crush Sr. Lucy Kalappurakkal. A host of developments, within and without the church, has plunged it into bewilderment. Not surprisingly, it reacts with extreme violence to Lucy for her solidarity with a raped fellow nun. This is read as rebellion against the church simply because the accused is a bishop of the church.
The same principle works in politics too. Mrs. Indira Gandhi sought to crush opposition to her rule, when her power was at its weakest. One of the questions discussed by political scientists is: Would Gandhiji have succeed against Hitler or Stalin, had he tried his strategy of non-violent resistance against their rule? Very likely, Gandhi and his associates would have been massacred and dissent eradicated. The British tolerated Gandhi because they were less insecure. And Gandhi, on his part, was shrewd enough to camouflage the challenge to British imperial power. He made them feel that he was their ally!
Unfortunately, Anson confronted the Mar Thoma Church at a time of its maximum insecurity. If the church were a trifle more secure, how would it have treated him?
To address this question we need to reckon what Anson’s ‘offence’ was.
Anson expressed himself publicly against what he believed to be, on compelling evidence, the insufferable enthronement of moral turpitude in the church. He argued that when alleged crime of a serious nature is under judicial scrutiny, it is improper and irresponsible to elevate the person concerned. When Anson found that his spiritual anguish was treated with evident contempt, he decided to quit.
In this light, ask: what would have been the Christian approach to this issue on the part of the Metropolitan of the church?
He could have called Anson and heard him. It is entirely possible that the Metropolitan believed that Anson was perversely misguided or deluded. In that case, he should have counselled Anson out of his prejudice. A break-through could have been achieved, which would have strengthened the church and inspired its members.
The Metropolitan, on behalf of the Mar Thoma Church, could have taken the stand, for example, that homosexuality is not a sin, but a genetic orientation. It has the added advantage that at least the women of the church, if not men, would be spared if a bishop is homosexual. (There is a brighter side to everything.) Anson could have been educated on this un-spelt theology of the church and enabled to come to terms with the changed church environment.
Anson cannot be deemed an enemy of the church, so long as the church does not legitimise homosexuality. Not even in a society of lunatics will punishing a man for his legitimate concerns be accepted as normal.
The Metropolitan did nothing of the sort; and Anson was shown the door with precipitous haste? At the very least, a mock-inquiry could have been conducted, to establish Anson’s delusional fixations.
In this connection I recall the many Mar Thomites who know, love and value Anson. I am intrigued by their deafening silence. Fear has sealed their mouths.
The strange situation is as follows. The church hierarchy fears Anson’s guts to question its ways. They do so because they fear that this could spread like the delta variant of COVID-19 in the church. So, they fear the Mar Thomites. The Mar Thomites, on their part, fear that they would meet with Anson’s fate, if they showed any solidarity with Anson, like Sr. Lucy vis-a-vis the rape-victim. So, there is a balance of fears: the hierarchy’s fear of the laity is balanced by the laity’s fear of the hierarchy. The result? Anson is churchless!
For the time being the Mar Thoma Church has saved its skin from Anson. It has bought peace in the worldly way. The church can cast out Anson; but it cannot overpower who he is, or eradicate what he stands for. He is out; but the questions he raised will remain within.

WHY ANSON THOMAS HAS NO ROOM IN THE INN?
Valson Thampu

Anson Thomas has been orphaned by the Mar Thoma Church. He is now a church-less Christian. That doesn’t mean, however, that he is homeless; for God is the unfailing home of those who seek ‘his Kingdom and righteousness’.
It is significant that Anson’s exclusion from the church happened even as a feature film was being made on his heroic mission in Mumbai, rescuing over 800 women and girls from their hellish red-light degradation. Of this there is no doubt: Anson is, in the mission that he still pursues, emulating the example of Jesus Christ who came to ‘seek and restore the lost’ (Luke 19:10).
Though I have not met Anson till date, I have heard of him through many a Mar Thomite. Not one of them ever referred to him without a word of appreciation for the mission he has been pursuing. So, the question arises:
Why is this very Anson Thomas now churchless? Why doesn’t he have a foothold on the Mar Thoma terrain, of which he has been a native? A similar question is, going back 2000 years, ‘Why was there no room in the inn’ for Mary to have a corner, in the hour of her extreme need and helplessness?
If one who seeks the lost needs to be lost from the church, what does that tell us of the church?
Fr. Robin, who raped and impregnated a teenage girl, and has been found guilty by the court is not expelled from the Catholic Church. Bishop Franko, accused of having raped a nun repeatedly, is still very much a bishop. The Orthodox priests who sexually exploited the wife of a church member and ruined his family are still very much within that church. The Mar Thoma priest who misappropriated, by fraudulent means, crores of rupees cheating an entire congregation is still happily within the Mar Thoma fold which cannot tolerate Anson.
In contrast, Anson is not accused of any moral offence. Then why is he an outcaste in the Mar Thoma Church? Come, let’s think together on this intriguing state of affairs.
Note first: Anson is ‘not guilty’, much like Jesus was 2000 years go. When an innocent person is forced out, howsoever covertly, of the church, the spotlight falls on the church, as it happened through the Crucifixion of Jesus. The Judaic church clamoured for the blood of Jesus when he was pronounced ‘not guilty’ by Pilate. That exposed the Judaic establishment, not Jesus.
Now, here is the relevant historical principle, if you want to understand the ‘Crucify Anson’ plot aright-
Every institution –church being one- is a nucleus of power. Power is formed by people coming together and acting in concert. The power of a priest, a bishop, a Metropolitan is derived from the people who constitute the church. It is to hide this reality that they tom-tom that priestly authority is derived straight from God. This is a colourful lie. Church is an institution. It is run accordingly. As a bishop of the Church of North India told me, ‘I run the church by the constitution, not the Bible’. If you think that a church runs on godliness, not on ‘gold-liness’, you are living on the other side of the Moon.
Now, power arms itself with violence. No power is real, unless it has the right to practise violence. That is because, though power is derived from the people, power does not stay true to the people. Power is inherently hierarchical. Hierarchies exist, mostly, for themselves. When a church is spiritually wholesome and cares for Jesus Christ, it minds the need to sustain the trust of the people. When it becomes worldly, it distances and alienates itself from the people, who are the very soil in which the church stands and is nourished.
As the church hierarchy distances itself from the laity, two things happen. (a) Members of the church hierarchy become obsessed with showcasing their superiority over the laity. They assume the airs of a superior class, entitled to the exclusive right to manipulate the affairs and resources of God. They showcase their class difference through costumes and privileges that, seen outside of the denominational ambience, look quaint and theatrical. (b) They become increasingly insecure as the distance between them and the laity increases. Yet, they need to distance themselves from the laity in order to create a mystique of worldly power and exclusivity about them.
The snowballing insecurity of the hierarchy makes them resort to repressive violence to everything that challenges their authority. The spiritual or ethical motive of the person who doesn’t count. This is evident in the brutality of Herod who massacres infants to lessen his insecurity.
To understand this, consider the Catholic Church’s hyper-eagerness to crush Sr. Lucy Kalappurakkal. A host of developments, within and without the church, has plunged it into bewilderment. Not surprisingly, it reacts with extreme violence to Lucy for her solidarity with a raped fellow nun. This is read as rebellion against the church simply because the accused is a bishop of the church.
The same principle works in politics too. Mrs. Indira Gandhi sought to crush opposition to her rule, when her power was at its weakest. One of the questions discussed by political scientists is: Would Gandhiji have succeed against Hitler or Stalin, had he tried his strategy of non-violent resistance against their rule? Very likely, Gandhi and his associates would have been massacred and dissent eradicated. The British tolerated Gandhi because they were less insecure. And Gandhi, on his part, was shrewd enough to camouflage the challenge to British imperial power. He made them feel that he was their ally!
Unfortunately, Anson confronted the Mar Thoma Church at a time of its maximum insecurity. If the church were a trifle more secure, how would it have treated him?
To address this question we need to reckon what Anson’s ‘offence’ was.
Anson expressed himself publicly against what he believed to be, on compelling evidence, the insufferable enthronement of moral turpitude in the church. He argued that when alleged crime of a serious nature is under judicial scrutiny, it is improper and irresponsible to elevate the person concerned. When Anson found that his spiritual anguish was treated with evident contempt, he decided to quit.
In this light, ask: what would have been the Christian approach to this issue on the part of the Metropolitan of the church?
He could have called Anson and heard him. It is entirely possible that the Metropolitan believed that Anson was perversely misguided or deluded. In that case, he should have counselled Anson out of his prejudice. A break-through could have been achieved, which would have strengthened the church and inspired its members.
The Metropolitan, on behalf of the Mar Thoma Church, could have taken the stand, for example, that homosexuality is not a sin, but a genetic orientation. It has the added advantage that at least the women of the church, if not men, would be spared if a bishop is homosexual. (There is a brighter side to everything.) Anson could have been educated on this un-spelt theology of the church and enabled to come to terms with the changed church environment.
Anson cannot be deemed an enemy of the church, so long as the church does not legitimise homosexuality. Not even in a society of lunatics will punishing a man for his legitimate concerns be accepted as normal.
The Metropolitan did nothing of the sort; and Anson was shown the door with precipitous haste? At the very least, a mock-inquiry could have been conducted, to establish Anson’s delusional fixations.
In this connection I recall the many Mar Thomites who know, love and value Anson. I am intrigued by their deafening silence. Fear has sealed their mouths.
The strange situation is as follows. The church hierarchy fears Anson’s guts to question its ways. They do so because they fear that this could spread like the delta variant of COVID-19 in the church. So, they fear the Mar Thomites. The Mar Thomites, on their part, fear that they would meet with Anson’s fate, if they showed any solidarity with Anson, like Sr. Lucy vis-a-vis the rape-victim. So, there is a balance of fears: the hierarchy’s fear of the laity is balanced by the laity’s fear of the hierarchy. The result? Anson is churchless!
For the time being the Mar Thoma Church has saved its skin from Anson. It has bought peace in the worldly way. The church can cast out Anson; but it cannot overpower who he is, or eradicate what he stands for. He is out; but the questions he raised will remain within.

---

No Church possible without women religious

No Church possible without women religious

Pope admits clerical abuse

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47134033

Sunny Fernandes questions Sr. Lucy’s dismissal

Corpus Christi

We are celebrating the feast of Corpus Christi today and we are called upon to imitate and be extremely close to Christ by receiving Holy Communion daily and not spiritual communion.

I have not received Holy Communion since Ash Wednesday this year thus I am not as close to Christ compared to some of you who celebrate and receive Christ daily. I would not like to remind you about the teachings of the programme called Deepen Your Faith which is approved by the Archdiocese of Bombay where the priest professor said that the bread and wine never become the body and blood of Christ and about which I had written about to the church hierarchy.

However today I would like ask whether Christ has been removed from Corpus Christi by some of you?

Despite sending two mails one on March 2nd,2021 and the other on May 4th,2021 the hierarchy deliberately chosen not to act and the payment of around Rs.3,00,000/- for the period prior to the year 2002 payable by St. Micheals Church continues to remain outstanding and the members of Our Lady of Vailankanni and Per. Succour CHS Ltd. continue to be the sufferers and do not get the benefit of prompt payment of municipal taxes amounting to Rs.70,000/- every year.

I am also aware how the Archdiocese of Mumbai wrote in the Examiner some years ago that St. Micheals continues to be the owner of the land as the property card stands in its name. Now when the taxes are to be paid you do not want to pay. Is this the sort of behaviour expected from a person who receives Christ daily?

Has Christ been removed from Corpus Christi and are you only interested in increasing your Corpus?

Your acts with respect to Marinagar , the selling of the gardens, the bogus FSI scam etc show that you have chosen to increase your Corpus at the cost of Christ.Its still not late to repent.

Happy Feast of Corpus Christi

A.M.Sodder

Our Christian Values have changed

Time and again we are preached that we the laity have changed our values. What was worst yesterday has become OK and what was bad has become acceptable today.

Sadly this is not only with our laity but also with our religious. Today religion has become a business and the priests who are the sole trustees have become the managing directors. Money is no longer a problem , the managing director must know how to make it.

A school in the central suburbs collects one lakh as donation. The principal who stays in Nalla sopara moves about in a car which stands in the name of a teacher.

A principal of a school in Bandra East is accused of raping a young lady of 19 years. The sad part all our Eucharistic ministers accused the girl that she was falsely accusing a priest and tarnishing the Churches name. She was pulled up at a meeting where more than 200 people were present. The girl then showed them pictures of the priest and her. Immediately two other catholic girls stood up and said they too had been attacked. The meeting ended all the chamchas ran away.

In Mahim, cameras were installed in the ladies toilet area were men are not allowed. The camera was fixed above the mirror. Normally any mirror is always fixed above the wash basin which was on the opposite wall. The climax was that nuns were part of the morcha which wanted the camera in the way it was fixed.

Fr. Simon Borges was the sole trustee of St. Micheals church. My society consisting of 112 flats was built on land originally owned by the church. St. Micheals Church had to transfer ownership of the land proportionate to the FSI consumed in the building within 4 months of society registration as per the MOF Act. My society was registered on 20/1/2004.Till date we have not been given conveyance. To top it all amenities sold to us ie gardens have been resold and plans to build two 16 storied buildings were passed by the Church with the approval of our beloved Cardinal Oswald Gracias who gives such wonderful sermons about saving gardens and the environment. Apparently based on documents of the Archdiocese of Mumbai , the Vatican has also approved the project. It’s sad that Catholics had to move the court and take an injunction against the Church. Laudato Si has a different meaning in Mumbai.

In Goa , the home of CCBI president shorts are not allowed in church premises but pictures circulated showed that drinking was allowed in an area, very close to the church. Surprisingly the church has remained silent. Mumbai Indians having permanent residences in Goa are called tourists and hence are not allowed in Church during the lockdown while Portuguese passport holders were allowed. Bishop Filipe Neri despite being sent 5 e mails has chosen to remain silent on these issues.If he is so busy he should never have taken the CCBI presidentship. After months of agitations by the people on various environmental issues he issued a statement only on December 3rd, 2020 .Laudato Si means nothing.

What is worst we now have a Catholic 2021 calendar with the photograph of Bishop Mullakal a person accused of rape. We have changed our values and saints pictures have been replaced with Mullakals. Sad but true.

Indeed our values have changed but what is worst is that while Christ had 11 disciples and one Judas at his table today it has become 11 Judases and one disciple. The sad part is that Disciples will soon become an endangered species.

Adv. A. M. Sodder

Civil execution of Church marriage annulment decrees

28 Oct 2019  |   05:34am IST

Recently the High Court of Bombay in Goa struck down Article 19 of Decree 35461 cancelling marriages as unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and ultra vires, FR MOUSINHO DE ATAIDE, a former Canonical Judge, provides an insight into the issue

The Decree No. 35.461, dated 22nd January 1946, is in consonance with the Common Civil Code in force in Goa, because it takes into account the specific internal legal organization and structure which the Catholic Church has. No other religion has such an organization and structure. So it cannot be considered discrimination in favour of the Catholic Church. Had such a Decree not been there, it would have been a discrimination against the Catholic Church. So it is not violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. “Equality towards unequals is the greatest form of inequality”.Art 19 of the said Decree regulating the civil execution of ecclesiastical decrees of nullity and dispensation of marriage is a corollary of Art. 8 ff. of the same Decree regulating the civil recognition of the canonical marriage.According to Art. 8 ff. of the said Decree, the Civil Registration Office, after a due process, acknowledges the canonical marriage as such, contracted according to this due process. Canonical marriage does not become civil marriage, it remains canonical. The Catholic Officiating Minister does not become a Civil Registrar, he remains a Minister of the Church.Art. 19 of the said Decree follows the same train of thought and legislation as Art. 8 ff. of the said Decree: The Church annuls and dispenses the canonical marriages, which are its own. The State, through its High Court, orders the civil execution of the ecclesiastical decrees of annulment and dispensation.At no time, either before or after Liberation, was the diplomatic channel ever made use of for transmission of the decrees of annulment and dispensation, verified and ratified by Rome, to the High Court for the purpose of their civil execution. It was always the Archdiocesan Tribunal which did the transmission directly.When in 1979 the Metropolitan Tribunal of Bombay became the Court of Appeal for Goa, the then Judicial Commissioner Mishra raised objections against civil execution of decrees of annulment issued by this Archdiocesan Tribunal of Goa, verified and ratified by the said Metropolitan Tribunal. But Justice Dr G F Couto, by his Judgment, dated 17th December 1982, stipulated that, when the annulment is duly confirmed by the competent Ecclesiastical Tribunal, it will be sufficient to forward such a decree to the High Court for the purpose of the execution, without getting it verified by the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature and forwarded to the High Court through diplomatic channel. Mr Justice Dr G F Couto bases his decisions, ‘inter alia’, on the fact that the Church itself has changed its law or rules. If the Church has made the Metropolitan Tribunal of Bombay the second Instance Court for Goa, instead of the Roman Tribunal, then the High Court has no objection to order civil execution of decrees by the said Metropolitan Tribunal, as it did till then with Roman decrees. It is the ecclesiastical internal arrangement, which the High Court respects.It is true that Art 19/2 of the said Decree establishes that the High Court must enforce the ecclesiastical decision of annulment and dispensation without revision and confirmation, but this does not preclude the High Court, by virtue of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, from verifying, when one of the parties raises doubts and suspicions, whether the ecclesiastical decisions are authentic, i.e. issued by the competent Ecclesiastical Tribunal, whether principles of natural justice, including the right of defence, have been followed, and only when the findings are affirmative, to order the execution of the ecclesiastical decisions. This is done by High Courts in Portugal after the Concordat of 2004 between the Holy See and Portugal. Thus Art. 19/2 of the said Decree is not violative of Art. 226 of the Constitution, and can very well be read within the parameters of the latter. It is to be noted that law is never a stagnant letter, unamenable to any progressive interpretation. This was already done with the same Art. in another matter by the above Judgment coram Mr Justice Dr G F Couto.The substantive Matrimonial Law, spanning from can. 1055 to can. 1165 (111 canons), and the Procedural Law, spanning from can. 1400 to can. 1752 (353 canons) are extensive and detailed, leaving no room to individual Judges’ whims and fancies. An annulment decision to be ecclesiastically executive requires affirmative Judgment by the lower Tribunal and the Decree of confirmation by the Higher Tribunal. This is even when there is no appeal from the first decision. Following of the procedural law and upholding of the right of defense are checked at every step during the trial. The Judge has to have at least a Masters in Canon Law. It is he who conducts the hearings, examining and cross-examining the parties. If the latter wish to requisition the services of an advocate, they are free to do so, in which case the advocate has the faculty to attend all the hearings and to cross-examine the parties. But the advocate has to have at least a Masters in Canon Law and approved by the Diocesan Bishop. When sufficient evidence has been collected, the parties are entitled to peruse it and produce any other piece of evidence. Their advocates may seek copies of the records and present their briefs. Besides, there is the defender of the bond who may attend hearings, goes through the records and files his observations in favour of the bond. Copies of the judgment are given to the parties, who, feeling themselves aggrieved, may file an appeal, which has to be admitted and the same procedure as above is followed. In view of these strict provisions of Canon Law, which are observed literally, it surpasses my mind how anyone can state that natural justice is not followed in the Church Courts.The Church (Code of Canon Law, Doctrine and Jurisprudence) has its own terminology, which may not be easily understood by others. Thus, discretion of judgment (can. 1095, 2°, C.I.C) means a mature evaluation of the other person and circumstances of the marriage. This has to be done at the time of the marriage and, if for any reason this is not done by the person, then the marriage is invalid. Reasons may be manifold. For example, a boy may be so infatuated with the beauty of the girl that he overlooks everything else, which, if he had considered, he would not have made and taken the decision to marry. This carries ‘per se’ no stigma on the boy.The other ground of nullity, sometimes invoked, is inability to assume essential obligations of marriage (can 1095, 3°, C.I.C). This is also prone to be misunderstood, specially by those who have half knowledge. Ability to assume… means possessing will-power sufficient to choose the marriage and to live it thereafter at least in a minimum passable manner. This may be proven oftener than not only ‘ex postfacto’. Here the canon specifies that the mentioned inability has to be due to “causes of psychic nature”. This formulation was done after setting aside two others, which had been proposed, viz: “grave psycho-sexual anomaly” and “grave psychic anomaly”. So the cause of inability may not be an anomaly. It is enough that it is a “cause of psychic nature”, that is a cause rooted in one’s psyche or personality. For example, a boy may have a personality of an ascetic or rishi or bear an asocial personality but still marry, and the resulting marriage becomes a disaster. This being so, to declare a person unable to assume… may not ‘per se’ a stigma on him.The Church Tribunals are not established under and do not draw their powers from Art. 19 of the above Decree-Law, but from the Code of Canon Law. They have recourse to the said Art. only for the purpose of having its decrees of nullity executed civilly. If the High Court, in its wisdom, feels that, for one reason or the other, it cannot order the civil execution, it is well within its powers, but surely it crosses its powers if it then sits in judgment over the ecclesiastical decision of nullity and overturns it and, worse still, orders the Church Tribunals to initiate the trial again, setting time limit for its completion. It is to be noted that the Church may not seek civil execution of its decrees of nullity and may keep the proceedings within its own ambit. Nothing prevents it from doing it.The High Court is within its rights to declare the said Art. 19 of the Decree Law unconstitutional, because it is a state law, and, having done it, to withdraw the civil execution, already performed under its orders, of the Church Decree of Annulment of the Marriage. But logic seems to fail it, when, pursuant to the same Art., declared unconstitutional, it takes upon itself the task of delving into Church Decrees. This is no disrespect towards the High Court. (The writer is currently posted at the Minor Seminary at Saligao, and earlier was a Canonical Judge)1COMMENTRelated news

https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?guci=2.2.0.0.2.2.0.0&client=ca-pub-8657336033133527&output=html&h=327&slotname=3513430809&adk=2303333021&adf=249001053&pi=t.ma~as.3513430809&w=393&ebfa=1&lmt=1606389416&rafmt=1&armr=1&psa=1&format=393×327&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.heraldgoa.in%2FGoa%2FCivil-execution-of-Church-marriage-annulment-decrees%2F152895&flash=0&fwr=1&rs=1&rh=250&rw=300&rpe=1&resp_fmts=3&sfro=1&wgl=1&adsid=ChEIgMH9_QUQoaDtuKOhqYipARI9AOYWqqejQre0myJ9KDVFpfZZyDNdS-QK1nokt2PUyhgPeS-_pKdNijeHJifiScS8p_-6JAyj31he2Rx4Eg&tt_state=W3siaXNzdWVyT3JpZ2luIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9hZHNlcnZpY2UuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbSIsInN0YXRlIjowfSx7Imlzc3Vlck9yaWdpbiI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXR0ZXN0YXRpb24uYW5kcm9pZC5jb20iLCJzdGF0ZSI6MH1d&dt=1606389414906&bpp=19&bdt=23240&idt=19&shv=r20201112&cbv=r20190131&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&cookie=ID%3D05d5d184a9723936-22a6b333b4c40004%3AT%3D1605122476%3ART%3D1605122476%3AS%3DALNI_MaY8ifaN7p7ULl8b8U53Z1OGJwMPw&prev_fmts=auto%2C0x0%2C0x0&nras=2&correlator=6128294270165&frm=20&pv=1&ga_vid=2005255353.1591962958&ga_sid=1606389410&ga_hid=763968902&ga_fc=0&iag=0&icsg=558513556170&dssz=37&mdo=0&mso=0&u_tz=330&u_his=1&u_java=0&u_h=851&u_w=393&u_ah=851&u_aw=393&u_cd=24&u_nplug=0&u_nmime=0&adx=0&ady=5787&biw=393&bih=720&scr_x=0&scr_y=358&eid=21066819%2C21066973&oid=3&pvsid=1562519890722881&pem=84&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&rx=0&eae=0&fc=900&brdim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C393%2C0%2C393%2C776%2C393%2C776&vis=1&rsz=%7C%7CEebr%7C&abl=CS&pfx=0&fu=8320&bc=31&ifi=2&uci=a!2&btvi=1&fsb=1&xpc=598c0ocETo&p=https%3A//www.heraldgoa.in&dtd=1677

https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?guci=2.2.0.0.2.2.0.0&client=ca-pub-8657336033133527&output=html&h=327&slotname=8199217203&adk=3561455100&adf=317619507&pi=t.ma~as.8199217203&w=393&lmt=1606389441&rafmt=1&armr=1&psa=1&format=393×327&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.heraldgoa.in%2FGoa%2FCivil-execution-of-Church-marriage-annulment-decrees%2F152895&flash=0&fwr=1&rs=1&rh=600&rw=300&rpe=1&resp_fmts=3&sfro=1&wgl=1&adsid=ChEIgMH9_QUQoaDtuKOhqYipARI9AOYWqqejQre0myJ9KDVFpfZZyDNdS-QK1nokt2PUyhgPeS-_pKdNijeHJifiScS8p_-6JAyj31he2Rx4Eg&tt_state=W3siaXNzdWVyT3JpZ2luIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9hZHNlcnZpY2UuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbSIsInN0YXRlIjowfSx7Imlzc3Vlck9yaWdpbiI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXR0ZXN0YXRpb24uYW5kcm9pZC5jb20iLCJzdGF0ZSI6MH1d&dt=1606389414932&bpp=6&bdt=23266&idt=6&shv=r20201112&cbv=r20190131&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&cookie=ID%3D05d5d184a9723936-22a6b333b4c40004%3AT%3D1605122476%3ART%3D1605122476%3AS%3DALNI_MaY8ifaN7p7ULl8b8U53Z1OGJwMPw&prev_fmts=auto%2C0x0%2C0x0%2C393x327%2C393x860%2C393x720&nras=4&correlator=6128294270165&frm=20&pv=1&ga_vid=2005255353.1591962958&ga_sid=1606389410&ga_hid=763968902&ga_fc=0&iag=0&icsg=140877116744370&dssz=38&mdo=0&mso=0&u_tz=330&u_his=1&u_java=0&u_h=851&u_w=393&u_ah=851&u_aw=393&u_cd=24&u_nplug=0&u_nmime=0&adx=0&ady=6304&biw=393&bih=720&scr_x=0&scr_y=877&eid=21066819%2C21066973&oid=3&pvsid=1562519890722881&pem=84&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&rx=0&eae=0&fc=900&brdim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C393%2C0%2C393%2C776%2C393%2C776&vis=1&rsz=%7C%7ClEebr%7C&abl=CS&pfx=0&fu=8320&bc=31&ifi=3&uci=a!3&btvi=3&fsb=1&xpc=B8j2ftB7vs&p=https%3A//www.heraldgoa.in&dtd=26916

Christ hears your prayers depending on your dress and place where you pray….. Adv. A.M.Sodder

Christ hears your prayers depending on how you dress and where you live. In Mumbai your prayers are heard even if you wear short pants but in Goa Christ will not hear your prayers if you are in short pants according to Bishop Filipe Neri.

On 23/10/2020 two Mumbaites both Goans having permanent residences in Goa visited the Candolim Church early in the morning . Both of them were stopped by two priests and prevented from hearing mass which is a grave liturgical abuse. The reason given,one was in short pants whose length was upto to the knees and the other though he had long pants was stopped as according to those two priest he was a tourist and Covid rules were in place.

Since the two highly educated persons did not want to create a scene at the Church premises one of them phoned Fr. Loyola who is the secretary of Bishop Filipe Neri and told him about the incident . He stated that rules are different in Mumbai and Goa and did not want to talk more as according to him the call was being recorded.Lets assume the call was being recorded when in fact it wasnt , why was Fr. Loyola afraid? One needs to be afraid only if one lies or is doing something wrong.

An e mail was sent to Bishop Filipe Neri who besides heading the Goa church is head of CCBI which deals with all issues pertaining to the internal working of the Church in India and Cardinal Oswald Gracias who heads the Mumbai Church and the CBCI which according to him only deals with the Government of India, asking them if there is a dress code while attending mass and if so to give me a copy , to give me the definition of tourist and if portuguese passport holders resident in Goa were tourists or not as they were attending mass as compared to Indians who were not allowed and to provide the Covid rules.

Four reminder e mails were sent to Bishop Filipe Neri and Cardinal Oswald Gracias asking for the same information and lastly they were given notice that in case no reply was received by November 6th, 2020 it would be presumed that there is no dress code , no definition of tourist and no Covid rules by the Goa Church.

In Mumbai a person who is a member of the Archdiocesean Finance Committee along with Cardinal Oswald Gracias receives communion in short pants. I feel that there is nothing wrong about it but Bishop Neri feels that it is wrong but is not willing to provide the dress code as probably according to him Christ does not hear ones prayers if one comes in shorts and hears mass in Goa, though priests can do official duties in civil dress.

Does Bishop Neri recide a different ” I Believe ” in Goa? Does he not believe in ONE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH OR DOES HE BELIEVE IN MANY CHURCHES IN INDIA? Bishop Neri is answerable to the laity as he is head of the CCBI which is supposed to deal with all internal matters related to the Church in India.

In another issue of 37 priests from Mysore ,Bishop Neri was asked for a meeting well in advance and was told people were coming from various places to Goa, he was also informed that flight tickets were booked and all arrangements made and tentative dates given to him, after persistent telephonic follow up with his secretary , he refused saying that he is afraid due to Covid, he was then told to give a zoom meeting as priests and people had arrived from Mangalore, Mumbai, Karnataka and Kerala , he then claimed he was unaware of the issue. I then sent him documentary evidence showing him that a letter was sent by registered post to him by one of the 37 priests one year prior to his e mail and the weight of the said letter was 290 grams and hence he was fully aware.

People occupying public posts are accountable to the public. People who do not have time to reply should not hold public posts. If Bishop Neri has no time to reply he should not be occuping such a post.

Lastly stop fooling people as chances are very high that you will get caught.

Adv. A.M.Sodder

US Priest Makes Pornographic Film On Altar, Arrested

Rome: A priest in the Archdiocese of New Orleans, US, has been arrested along with two women and charged with obscenity after he was discovered filming a pornographic video on a parish church altar.

Father Travis Clark, 37, the pastor of Sts. Peter and Paul in Pearl River, Louisiana, was arrested together with Mindy Dixon, 41, and Melissa Cheng, 23, on September 30.

A local resident told police they noticed the lights were on in the parish church, and upon looking in the windows, saw the three engaged in sexual activity on the altar. According to reports, the altar of the church had been outfitted with stage lighting.

The Archdiocese of New Orleans announced the following day, Oct. 1, that Clark had been arrested and removed from ministry. Initially, no details were given for the cause of his removal, other than to confirm that he was not accused of any offences related to abuse of minors.

Details were not revealed until Oct. 8, when public records were released.

Dixon is a pornographic performer and “dominatrix.” According to Nola.com, she had posted on her social media the day before her arrest that she was headed to New Orleans to “defile a house of God” alongside another “dominatrix,” presumably Cheng.

Police believe the sexual encounter to have been consensual, and have not filed charges related to sexual assault. The obscenity charge stemmed from the fact that the sex act was visible from a window.

Clark is expected to face canonical sanctions for violations of clerical continence, and for the profanation of an altar, which is constituted a crime in canon 1376 of the Code of Canon Law, which provides that “a person who profanes a movable or immovable sacred object is to be punished with a just penalty.”

Clark was ordained a priest in 2013, and became the pastor of Sts. Peter and Paul in 2019. He had recently been named the chaplain of Pope John Paul II High School in Slidell, Louisiana, replacing another priest who resigned this summer. That priest, Fr. Paul Wattingly, was also suspended from public ministry Oct 1, after he admitted to abusing a minor in 2013.

“Both of these situations are very troubling to me. When a priest does not live out his vocation faithfully he suffers consequences and I must notify the parishioners, school families, and public in general,” said Archbishop Gregory Aymond of New Orleans in an Oct. 1 statement announcing the suspensions.

“Please pray for all those affected, especially the parishioners of the parishes and school communities where they have served,” he added.

Aymond has since performed a penitential liturgy of atonement and re-consecration of the altar at Sts. Peter and Paul church following the act of profanation.

As news of the story spread Friday, one priest on Twitter urged Catholics to pray prayers of reparation, “consoling the heart of Jesus.”

Clark, Dixon, and Cheng have all been released on bail.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/new-orleans-priest-defiles-altar-with-pornographic-filmmaking-arrested-for-obscenity-48530

Jetpack Comment