By chhotebhai

Kanpur, Oct 21`, 2021: Two friends from different parts of India sent me the now viral letter about priests and trusts. The letter No 0899/21/IN dated October 8, 2021 is written by Archbishop Leopoldo Girelli, the apostolic nuncio to India. It is addressed to the bishops of Tamil Nadu and makes interesting reading, meriting circumspection.

The nuncio’s attention was drawn to several priests in Tamil Nadu establishing private trusts “registered under the guise of Non-Governmental Organizations ostensibly to help those in need.” The nuncio writes that “all too often they become financial and political power bases for the priests involved”. He continues that priests and religious should not be associated with autonomous trusts/societies/companies, unless they are specifically approved by the bishops concerned.

He then quotes canon law. Priests are not permitted to take up the management of goods belonging to lay persons or secular offices which entail an obligation of rendering accounts. They cannot even stand as personal surety for such acts without the bishop’s permission (cf Can 285:4). He goes on to say that Canon 286 states that “clerics are prohibited from conducting business or trade personally or through others, again without the bishop’s permission. Non-compliance would attract penal provisions, according to their gravity, as per Canon 1392.

He then “recommends” that the Tamil Nadu bishops formulate guidelines for such activities. The bishops are to ascertain details of personal trusts run by priests. They should be closed down and no new ones permitted. Genuine trusts may be brought under diocesan control and there should be no sole trusteeship whatsoever.

On the face of it this is a bold and pragmatic step by the Nuncio and needs to be fully appreciated. However, I see it as a conundrum, raising more questions than it answers. Here’s why.

1. If by the very nature of their vocation priests are not supposed to indulge in trade and commerce, then why should the bishop permit it at all? Take the Rupees Thirty Crores (300 million) cash scandal in Jalandhar diocese on March 29, 2019. The Punjab police raided the premises of a church and recovered several millions in cash. Note that this was just two days before the close of the financial year, when most businessmen start padding up their books.

The Model Code of Conduct for the Lok Sabha elections was also in force that specifically bans the possession of large amounts of cash. It is also contrary to Income Tax rules. The real shocker though is the “Important Clarification” issued by Bishop Agnelo Gracias, the apostolic administrator. It was published on page 9 of the diocesan magazine “Christward’ in April and states, inter alia, that a group of companies was being run under the name of Sahodhaya for supply of text books, smart boards, training of security personnel and construction work.

These “companies” were not run by the diocese, but by some diocesan priests with due permission and within the ambit of law. 140 million had already been deposited in the bank and the remaining amount of 166,500,000 rupees was being counted by a single bank employee late at night when the police raid took place. Docile and gullible Catholics swallowed this story hook, line and sinker. I didn’t.

2. The next example is of Bishop Gallela Prasad of Cuddapah diocese. In the wake of ample evidence of diversion of funds to his alleged mistress and son, he was removed from office and now resides in St. Patrick’s School, Gandhinagar, Chennai. The moot question is, “What happened to the misappropriated funds?” Is this not a betrayal of trust? Where is the recompense and restoration that should form part of repentance?

3. What about Bishop Franco Mulackal, again of Jalandhar, who is being tried on multiple rape charges? Who is funding his expensive lawyers in Kerala and even in the Supreme Court? How can he continue to reside in the Bishop’s House in Jalandhar, when he is facing such serious criminal charges? In contrast, the poor victim faces shame and trepidation. Did not the bishop betray the trust of a woman religious over whom he exercised authority?

4. Bishop K.A. William of Mysore is also in the news for multiple counts of betrayal of the trust reposed in him. Around 37 priests of his diocese have submitted a written complaint against him that includes allegations of murder, sexual molestation and financial misappropriation. On September 15, 2020 Cardinal Tagle ordered him to undergo a paternity test. No action taken. The nuncio appointed an enquiry committee that made two visits to the diocese in March and July this year.

Several witnesses deposed, even on oath. Dossiers of evidence were submitted. All we know is that the committee ordered him to desist from selling a 269 acre coffee estate in Yercaud, Tamil Nadu. On the complaint of the parishioners of Nagavalli the Senior Civil Judge, Chamarajnagar, passed a restraining order on September 22 this year against the bishop selling off the parish property. The dossier alleges financial misappropriation running into several millions, and lists 3.3 million rupees put into personal Life Insurance in 2016, just before he was appointed bishop. If the committee report does not reflect these allegations, or the nuncio refuses to act on it, then again it will be a huge betrayal of trust.

5. There are several other provisions in Canon Law that would merit the nuncio’s attention. Canon 284 states that clerics should wear suitable ecclesiastical dress. Do they? Canon 282 says that they should have a simple way of life and avoid anything that smacks of worldliness. I presume that includes fancy cars, electronic gadgets, photographic equipment, watches, perfumes and liquor. Canon 277 says that clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence, not just celibacy. So all and every sexual act or stimulus is out. Canon 276:2 imposes the obligation of the liturgy of hours. How many priests do we see today with their breviaries? They seem to have been replaced by briefcases. Canon 279 warns against profane novelties and pseudo-science. This is a tough task.

6. Trusteeship cannot be limited to an organization. More importantly, it is a huge responsibility that a priest or a bishop voluntarily accepts to carry. But seen in its strictly legalistic sense we find that in the Bombay Archdiocese, the parish priest is the sole trustee of the parish. Attempts by the Charity Commissioner to curtail this hegemony or monopoly have failed. Most dioceses are registered as societies, trusts or even as companies. Legally therefore their trusteeship (stewardship) is limited only to the members of such bodies. The common people have no locus standi, and cannot hold such juridical bodies accountable. Courts function on legalities, not moralities; so in the absence of any other checks and balances, such trusts, by their very opaqueness, breed mistrust.

In India we have various civil laws to govern religious places. The Sikhs are governed by the rules of the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee. Muslims have Waqf boards and in many states there are Devasom Boards to manage big temple trusts. There have been attempts in Kerala to bring in legislation to manage or control Church properties, but the all-powerful hierarchy has stymied such attempts.

So what does the laity do about trusts, trusteeship, the trust deficit or even the betrayal of trust? Part of Pope Francis’ agenda on Synodality is to break this hegemony. He calls it the curse of clericalization that is not according to the mind of Christ. Vatican II was about the devolution of power in collegial and fraternal relationships. It didn’t happen. The present Synod could meet the same fate. Yet I believe that “hope springs eternal in the human breast”.

How does one restore power parity, as in a weighing scale? Either one removes some weight from one pan, or adds weight to the other. The first option is what happened during the French Revolution when the people grabbed power from both the monarchy and hierarchy. The other alternative is much slower, the Ambedkar approach, that knowledge is a power. The ignorant laity should stop blaming others and became knowledgeable and aware.

Secondly, it must build its own financial resources and institutions. Just like the Tatas and Azim Premji, Catholic industrialists and leaders should focus on becoming economically independent. In this context I welcome the clamp down on easy access to foreign funds that made the hierarchy and clergy even more self-sufficient and the laity redundant. Then, and only then, will the powerful hierarchy/clergy take note of you. Till that happens all we will get is cautionary notes from the nuncio on trusteeship. May this Synod be an opportunity for the laity, the somnambulant giant, to come of age.

(The writer is the convener of the Indian Catholic Forum)