WHERE WAS THE BCS AND WHAT IS ITS STAND ON THE MARINAGAR ISSUE?
HAS THE BCS BOOKED AN OFFICE ON MY SOCIETYS GARDEN IN MARINAGAR?
IF SO THE MONEY WHICH THE BCS HAS USED IS PUBLIC MONEY WHICH HAS BEEN USED ?
I HAVE SENT A NUMBER OF MAILS TO THE BCS PRESIDENT ON THIS ISSUE BUT HE HAS CHOSEN TO REMAIN SILENT?
WHY HAS HE CHOSEN TO REMAIN SILENT?
IS IT BECAUSE THE CHURCH IS INVOLVED?
IN THE LAST 30 YEARS OF EXISTENCE( DESPITE ALL THE SUPPORT GIVEN TO YOUR ORGANISATION LIKE FREE OFFICES/ HALLS/ Church announcements ETC) BESIDES GIVING SCHOLARSHIPS AND HOLDING HEALTH CAMPS/ MEETS WHAT IS THAT SINGULAR ACHIEVEMENT WHICH YOU CAN CLAIM YOUR ORGANISATION HAS DONE TO HELP THE CATHOLICS? THESE THINGS WHAT YOU DO CAN BE DONE BY ANY NGO WITHOUT HAVING THE NAME CATHOLIC ATTACHED TO IT.
I USUALLY DO NOT COMMENT ABOUT OTHER GROUPS BUT SINCE YOU HAVE DARED TO COMMENT ON MINE I AM FORCED TO REACT.
HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO GET ONE SEAT FOR THE CATHOLIC COMMUNITY IN ANY ELECTION?
OR ARE OFFICE BEARERS USING THE BCS FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT?
I CAN NAME THE PERSONS WHO WHILE HOLDING POSTS OF THE BCS MANAGING COMMITTEE HAVE LOBBIED TO GET MLA/ MUNICIPAL CORPORATORS TICKETS AND HAVE SUBMITTED NOMINATIONS FOR THE POST OF VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE MINORITIES COMMISSION.
IN FACT OFFICE BEARERS OF BCS SHOULD HAVE PROMOTED OTHERS FOR THESE POSTS BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT CERTAIN OFFICEBEARERS THEMSELVES USED THE POST OF BCS TO BARGAIN FOR THEMSELVES TO GET TICKETS/ GOVERNMENT POSTS.
SO BEFORE COMMENTING ON OTHERS BUSINESSES SEE WHAT YOU YOURSELF ARE DOING.
IN FACT IN THE PAST BCS HELD A MEETINGS AND GAVE WRONG INFORMATION WHICH I HAD WRITTEN TO YOU WITH THE CORRECT FIGURES WHICH I HAD OBTAINED UNDER RTI AND YOU DID NOT GET BACK TO ME.
IN THE PAST BCS HAD A MEETING AND IN WHICH A PANEL SPEAKER A CONSUMER COURT ADVOCATE TOLD THE AUDIENCE THAT GOING TO CIVIL COURTS FOR CONVEYANCE MEANS SPENDING LAKHS OF RUPEES AS COURT FEE AS PER THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WHEN IN FACT COURT FEE OF LESS THAN RS.300 IS PAYABLE FOR A SUIT FILED FOR CONVEYANCE.
As far as my organisation goes we do not operate from any free office. We do not collect money from any person nor do we get Church help in any form. Whatever is being done is being done in our personal capacity and most of all we do not make use of any Church Post for our personal ambitions.
The Church Hierarchy,
IN THE PAST , FR. NIGEL BARRET HAS DEFAMED THE AOCC BY CALLING IT A FRINGE GROUP IN HIS INTERVIEW AS SPOKESPERSON FOR THE ARCHDIOCESE OF MUMBAI which is published on the net on the Sanal Issue.In an e mail received from the Cardinal by me, I have been informed that the Cardinal had not told him to call any groups name , thus Fr. Nigel has misused his post of Spokesperson of the Archdiocese when he gave the said interview.
In the e mail attached below HE GOES TO STATE THAT ” The Archdiocese takes all allegations seriously“. PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT. THE ARCHDIOCESE IS SELECTIVE IN ITS TAKING UP OF ISSUES.
I HAD WRITTEN TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOMBAY ABOUT MARINAGAR IN THE YEAR 2009 TILL TODAY NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE.One Lakh Seventy Thousand sq.feet of FSI have been fraudulently obtained on the basis of bogus documents.
I HAD WRITTEN ABOUT GLORIOSSA WHERE THE CHURCH HAS STILL NOT GOT ITS 12 FLATS TILL TODAY and in fact allowed the builder to sell the said 12 one bedroom hall kitchen flats without taking any collateral. HOW MANY CATHOLICS WOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THIS INTEREST FREE LOAN WITHOUT ANY COLLATERAL.
I HAD WRITTEN ABOUT THE COMMUNITY HALL, TERRACE WHICH THE CHURCH IN DADAR HAD TO GET AND HAS STILL NOT GOT TILL TODAY.
I had written about shops on lease given on 11 months lease in 1996 and till today not taken back. The shops are located on the main LJ road in Mahim.
I had written of an e mail being sent from Snehalaya Mahim to a lady in Dadar which had sexually overtones and also made obscene references to her niece. Till today nothing has been done. In fact the authorities were protecting the said Priest.
Most of these ISSUES DO NO AFFECT TWO PEOPLE AS IN FR. CONRADS CASE BUT AFFECT THOUSANDS OF PERSONS AND FAMILIES and not lakhs but crores of rupees are involved.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE FINANCE COMMISSION INQUIRY IN MARINAGAR WHICH CARDINAL OSWALD GRACIAS GAVE A QUOTE IN DNA NEWSPAPER IN THE 2011? WHY IS ITS REPORT NOT OUT till today?
Why is no police complaint lodged despite giving the archdiocese a copy of the letter given of one Fr.Adrin Pereira who it was claimed was the then Parish Priest of Our Lady of Egypt Church Kalina having his forged signature and given to transfer property in the City Survey Office?
Why should 4 families be on the road due to the acts of Fr. John Rumao? In fact then Fr. Dominic Savio Fernandes now Bishop gave the deal a clean chit when in fact there was no Charity Commissioners sanction on the date the expired Power of Attorney was used to register the deal in 2005. In fact the Church got 3,51,000/- in the year 2005 while the Government of Maharashtra will get over Rs.21,00,000/- as stamp duty. Just imagine the extent the property was undervalued.
In fact if the religious do not understand about properties they should not comment on the same.But my experience has been that all the positive points were only highlighted by Fr.Dominic Savio Fernandes in his letter submitted to Court regarding the Valerian / Vakola property and no mention was mentioned that a High Court Suit for specific performance was pending in respect of the same plot on the date he gave his so called clean chit. No mention was made that Charity Commissioners sanction had expired more that 5 years prior to the date of registration of the document and that the money was paid years after it was supposed to be paid. It was a fantastic cover up job.
Not just that Fr.Dominic Savio Fernandes defamed me , then apologised and said that he still stood by his statement. Today I have documents in my possession which shows that the deal took place in 2008 between the Church and the builder and 70 % of tenants consent is not there in the MHADA file which is mandatory. Since he stood by his statement it means he knew and knows everything.The Church never owned Quinny House yet has submitted documents in Mhada showing that it owns Quinny House. All Quinny House tenants have been rehoused way bach in 1997 but the Church has submitted documents that they are yet to be rehoused.Today my challenge to him is lets have a debate on the Marinagar issue and let us see whether you still stand by your statement and whether he knows what the law is and that conveyance is to be given in 4 months of society registration.They talk about humility but till today none of the persons involved have had the guts to even phone me up or telephone me to tell me that they are sorry for what they did. Yes some persons do need retreats and treatment.
Five buildings which the Church still owns are shown as MHADA as already in the scheme for redevelopment.The Church has been fooled and cheated. Yet nothing is being done.
Isn’t the Church selective in its actions.
My questions is WHY SHOULD THE CHURCH BE SELECTIVE IN ITS ACTIONS?
Act against all uniformly. There should never be any favourites that is what our religion teaches us.
Statement of Fr. Nigel Barrett –
Since Fr. Conrad has gone public, we need to make a few points clear by way of background information. The Archdiocese received allegations of serious misconduct by Fr Conrad Saldanha. An inquiry was conducted and, based on the findings of the inquiry committee, appropriate remedial measures were imposed. These remedial measures included a guided retreat and therapeutic counseling in Bangalore. Both these remedial steps were to help Fr. Conrad reintegrate himself with the Church and the community he serves. Fr. Conrad, till date, has refused to accept and undertake these remedial measures. Instead, he has appealed to Rome against the decision. Rome (i.e. the Vatican) rejected the appeal. Fr Conrad has made a second appeal to a higher competent authority. This appeal is under due process and it would not be appropriate to comment on it. The Archdiocese takes all allegations seriously and so, in the best interests of the people of the Archdiocese, it was decided to house Fr. Conrad in the Seminary – in a prayerful environment and away from community – till such time the matter is satisfactorily resolved. There have been several attempts made by the cleaning staff to clean Fr. Conrads room, he does not open the room to let them in and keeps them waiting for periods of time. If his room is not clean it is not because the is a lack of willingness from the seminary or the cleaning staff. We have made several attempts to reach out to Fr. Conrad at every level but he remains unresponsive and uncommunicative. If there is anyone who would be willing to mediate with Fr. Conrad, we would be happy to engage in dialogue with him.