Dear Friends,
We would like to send you a copy of the 11th open letter sent by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to the Jesuit superior general in Rome regarding Fr. Pallath¡¦s case.
For further information, including this letter, please visit http://jjpallath.ahrchk.net.
Thank you.
Urgent Appeals Desk
Asian Human Rights Commission
=========================================================
Eleventh Open Letter to the Jesuit Superior (This is the eleventh of a series of letters on the issues regarding the treatment of Fr. Pallath J. Joseph of the Kerala Province of Jesuits in India.)
August 13, 2001
An Open Letter to:
Rev. Fr. Peter-Hans Kolvenbach
Superior General
Curia Generalize
Compagnia di Gesu
C.P. 6139
00195 Roma Prati ITALY
FAX: 39-06-686-8214
ELEVENTH OPEN LETTER RE: Physical Assault, Slander through the Gutter Press, Filing of Fabricated Criminal Cases, Denial of Right to Livelihood and Other Matters Relating to Fr. Pallath J. Joseph – Request for an Inquiry
The Theme of the Eleventh Letter: A Leaflet Published by Jesuits in Kerala and Fr. Pallath¡¦s Request for an Inquiry
Dear Rev. Fr. General,
In the first and second open letters to you, the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) raised some concerns from a moral and human rights point of view regarding all of the episodes relating to the case of Fr. Pallath J. Joseph of which you are aware. Our third letter to you outlined in detail why we as a human rights organisation are concerned about Fr. Pallath¡¦s case; and in the fourth letter, we questioned the manner in which the leaders of the Jesuit order have dealt with this issue. In our fifth letter to you, we raised the issue of racism in regards to the treatment of Fr. Pallath by the Jesuit order in this case. Our sixth letter to you dealt with the use of common sense to resolve Fr. Pallath¡¦s case. In our seventh letter, we compared the cases of Belgian Jesuit Jacques Dupuis and Fr. Pallath. Our eighth letter noted the lack of justice that has transpired in dealing with Fr. Pallath¡¦s case and questioned whether this conformed with the central place of love in Jesuit teaching and Christian theology. The danger of overemphasising obedience that is reflected in the German saying Bevel ist bevel – an Order is an order – that laid the foundation for Nazi fascism during World War II and that appears to be playing a role in Fr. Pallath¡¦s case was highlighted in our ninth letter. In our 10th letter, we referred to your continuing silence in responding to Fr. Pallath¡¦s case, a lack of action that we noted fosters impunity in this serious matter. While it is not our intention to interfere with the affairs of your order, there are matters of public interest about which many people, including our commission, are quite concerned. They are as follows:
(1) The physical assault of Fr. Pallath J. Joseph by two members of your order, together with several other hired thugs;
(2) The throwing of the body of Fr. Pallath over the wall of the Jesuit¡¦s premises and onto the road while he was in an unconscious or semiconscious state;
(3) Slandering Fr. Pallath by some members of your order using a gutter magazine called Crime Star;
(4) The filing of fabricated criminal complaints against Fr. Pallath with the view to have him arrested as a way to prevent him from entering a Jesuit house;
(5) The failure of the Jesuit superiors to respect an agreement entered into between Fr. Pallath and the Jesuits in Kerala through the mediation of the bishop of Calicut; and
(6) The failure to provide for the livelihood of Fr. Pallath after 33 years of service.
On Aug. 2, a leaflet was published in the local Malayalam language by Jesuits in Kerala. An identical English version was sent to the Talking Point at the web site by a person under the name of Tamara Joseph. Obviously, both versions are from the same source. AHRC requested Fr. Pallath to comment on this publication, which Fr. Pallath has kindly obliged to do and which appears later in this letter.
We, however, draw your attention as the superior general of the Jesuit order to the final paragraph of Fr. Pallath¡¦s reply:
¡§Now that the Jesuit authorities have come up with ¡§Thamara Joseph¡¦s¡¨ version as their own official version and there are diametrically opposite versions on many issues and incidents, it is the bound duty of the Jesuits to establish the veracity of my dismissal. I suggest that a mutually agreeable three-member commission, without preconditions, investigate the entire incident and find out the truth. If the Society of Jesus agrees to this proposal, I shall withdraw all of the cases, both criminal and civil, and shall suspend all agitations and follow the verdict of the commission.¡¨
While the facts mentioned in the Jesuit leaflet are obviously incorrect and very inconsistent with the earlier position, AHRC welcomes the leaflet as an attempt by the Jesuits in Kerala to break the public silence and to engage in dialogue on this issue. We urge you to take an active part in promoting an open discussion about this case and thereby to bring this matter to a just and amicable settlement. Given the enormous publicity that this incident has attracted both inside and outside of Kerala, an open clarification of all of the issues involved will be beneficial to all of the parties concerned.
Sincerely yours,
Basil Fernando
Executive Director
Asian Human Rights Commission
We reproduce below the response by Fr. Pallath at the request of AHRC to a Jesuit leaflet and a message by Tamara Joseph to Talking Point on the web site about Fr. Pallath¡¦s case.
Dear Basil,
I saw the response by a certain ¡§Thamara Joseph¡¨ at the Talking Point on the web site. I think it is written by the Jesuits themselves in the name of Thamara Joseph, for an exact translation of the same response in Malayalam is published as the official position of the Jesuits in a leaflet dated Aug. 2, 2001, the day that the All-India Convention of the Forum of Religious for Justice and Peace began at Ernakulam at which you were supposed to present the paper on human right violations in the Church. While they own up to the authorship of the version in Malayalam, they put the ownership of the English version on Thamara Joseph – perhaps out of fear of committing themselves to an open discussion the world over. Now that they have owned up to the authorship of the leaflet, the following is my response to ¡§Thamara Joseph.¡¨
(1) I have appealed to the Signatura Apostolica (Supreme Court) about the rejection of my appeal to the Congregation for Religious Institutes and Societies of Apostolic Life, and the appeal is pending.
(2) Fr. Shagi Edanolil, SJ, is a witness to the Jesuit authorities ¡§politely¡¨ asking me to leave and ¡§escorting me to the gate.¡¨ His eyewitness account says that I was physically assaulted using goondas, or thugs, under the supervision of Fr. Abraham Pallivathukal, SJ, and Fr. Joseph Kalleppilly, SJ, in the presence of other Jesuits. I was in a dazed condition, and I do not know what happened. I remember that I was escorted by some people to a nearby telephone booth, and they phoned my friends at my request.
(3) The Jesuit authorities did not honour the agreement. It was up to them to get me incardinated in a diocese of the Malabar region to continue my work. This I insisted on because of the slandering letter of Fr. John Manipadam, the provincial, that was circulated on Aug. 1, 2000, to the bishops and to the general public which foreclosed any episcopal benevolence. The then-acting provincial, Fr. Paul Vadekkel, not only did not do anything to incardinate me according to the agreement but influenced the bishops of the Malabar region not to incardinate me in any diocese. Once the possibility of my incardination was sabotaged, it amounted to disowning the agreement in its spirit. Over and above this, they did not withdraw the case against me on the date that they agreed to do. Later they refused to give me an alternative accommodation and maintenance in exchange for my leaving Christ Hall at the request of the bishop of Calicut.
(4) It is a known fact that Jesuits wrote the article in the gutter magazine Crime Star. The content of the article is exactly the same as the content of the letter that the Fr. Provincial circulated on Aug. 1, 2000, and it contains information that only the Jesuit Curia can furnish. Now we have identified the Jesuits who wrote the article. The Jesuits also gave wide publicity to the article by phoning the neighbouring convents and their friends. They also informed the women in households which are friendly to me obviously to antagonise me. The Jesuit authorities even bought a large number of copies of the magazine and circulated it in the convents and Jesuit houses. It is true that Jesuits don¡¦t normally read such magazines, but the provincial and his caucus in the Curia did all of these things to justify my unjust dismissal and their human rights violations by slandering me.
(5) I was getting the foreign money routed through the FCRA number of the province. There wasn¡¦t even the remotest suggestion of financial mismanagement either in the accusatory letter dated March 6, 1999, of the province treasurer addressed to the Fr. Provincial or in the order of the Fr. Provincial ¡§transferring¡¨ me from Samskriti or when I handed over the money, accounts, etc., to the new director in the presence of the former provincial, Fr. Joseph Pulickal, who made sure that every point was clear and nothing would cause a future complaint, or in the Fr. Provincial¡¦s ultimatum dated March 27, 2000, or in the dismissal notification. From where did ¡§Ms. Thamara Joseph¡¨ then get this information? It is the duty of the present director of Samskriti to get the account of the last instalments audited as I was transferred before the audit.
(6) The Jesuit authorities first filed a fabricated criminal case against me on Aug. 7, 2000, for stealing a digital camera which, as the director of Samskriti, I got from Missio. I entrusted the camera with an expert for use with a written agreement on stamped paper, which was done in agreement with the Jesuit provincial, consultors and other reputed Jesuits, including Fr. Joe Pulickal. It was one week later that I filed a civil case against the Jesuit provincial on Aug. 16, 2000, claiming that I am still the director of Samskriti just to escape arrest from the criminal complaint filed on Aug. 7, 2000.
(7) I still hold the view that mine is a summary dismissal based on a personal vendetta without sufficient reason and without following proper procedures.
(8) Now that the Jesuit authorities have come up with ¡§Thamara Joseph¡¦s¡¨ version as their own official version and there are diametrically opposite versions on many issues and incidents, it is the bound duty of the Jesuits to establish the veracity of my dismissal. I suggest that a mutually agreeable three-member commission, without preconditions, investigate the entire incident and find out the truth. If the Society of Jesus agrees to this proposal, I shall withdraw all of the cases, both criminal and civil, and shall suspend all agitations and follow the verdict of the commission.
Fr. Joseph J. Pallath, SJ
