MASS IN TAMIL IN CATHOLIC CHURCHES ARE INVALID : CHENNAI COURT
September 10, 2013
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT CHENNAI
Present: Thiru T.Chandrasekar, M.L.,
IV Assistant Judge
Friday , the 6th day of September 2013
O.S.No.9269/1995
1 . G.Alex Benziger,
18, Pidariyar Koil lane, Madras-1.
2 . Dr.Leonard Vasanth, “Vasco”,
AB-34, Ana Nagar, Madras/40.
3 . J.V.Fernando, 354/7,
Aiswarya Colony, Anna Nagar,
Madras -40. ... Plaintiffs
//vs//
1 . Catholic Bishops Conference of India,
rep. by
the Secretary General,
CBCI Centre, 1, Ashok Place Near
Goledakkhana,
New Delhi 110 001.
2 . Most Rev. Dr.George Antonysamy,
Archbishop of Madras- Mylapore,
21, Santhome High Road, Madras-4.
2nd defendant is substituted as per the
order of the court made in I.A.4333/2013
dated 08.06.2013.
3 . Rt. Rev. A.Anandarayar,
Archbishop of Pondicherry, Cuddalore,
Archbishop's house, Pondicherry 605 001.
3rd defendant is substituted as per the
order of the court made in I.A.4687/2008
dated 03.06.2008.
4 . Most Rev. Dr.Peter Fernando,
Archbishop of Madurai, Archbishop's house,
Pondicherry 625 008.
5 . Most Rev. Dr.Devadoss Ambrose,
Bishop of Thanjavur,
Bishop's
house, Thanjavur 613 007.
6 . Rt. Rev. P.Soundarajan Periyanayagam Sdb,
Bishop of Vellore, Bisbhop's house, 34
officer's line,
Vellore – 632 001.
6th
defendant is substituted as per the order of the
court made in I.A.4687/2008 dated
03.06.2008.
7.
Rt. Rev. S.Singaroyar,
Bishop of Salem, Bishop's house,
Maravaneri, Salem 636 007.
8 . Most Rev. Dr.Thomas Aqinas,
Bishop of Coimbatore,
Bishop's house, Coimbatore, 636 007.
9 . Rt.Rev. Dr.Antony Devotta,
Bishop of Trichy,
Bishop's
house, Tiruchirappalli 620 001.
10 . Rt. Rev. Antonysamy Francis,
Bishop of Kumbakonam, Bishop's house,
Kumbakonam 612 001.
10th
defendant is substituted as per the
order of the court made in I.A.5492/2009
dated 30.06.2009.
11 . Rt. Rev. Dr.Susimanickam,
Bishop of Sivagangai, Bishop's house,
Sivagangai 623 560.
12 . Rt. Rev. Ivan Ambrose,
Bishop of Tuticorin,
Bishop's house, Tuticorin 628 001.
13 . Rt. Rev. Dr.Jude Paul Raj,
Bishop of Palaymkottai,
Catholic Bisshop's house,
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli 627 001.
14 . Rt. Rev. Dr.Peter Remigius,
Bishop of Kottar,
Bishop's house, Nagercoil 629 001.
14th defendant is substituted as per the
order of the court made in I.A.4687/2008
dated 03.06.2008.
15 . Rt.Rev. Dr.Anandarayar,
Bishop of Otacamund,
Bishop's house, Ootacamund 643 001.
16 . Rt. Rev. George Zur,
Apostolic Pro-Nuncio to India,
50-C Niti Marg, Chanakyapuri,
New Delhi 110 021. ... Defendants.
This suit coming on 13.08.2013
for final hearing before me in the presence of M/s K.Shanmugakani, learned
counsels for the plaintiffs and of M/s R.Thirugnanam, VMurali, and V.S.Ramesh,
learned counsels for the defendants 2 to 15 and the suit against the defendants
1 and 16 have been given up, upon hearing their arguments, upon perusing the
documents and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court
delivered the following
JUDGMENT
The suit has been filed under
Order VII Rule 1 of CPC
a) for declaration that the
translation of Missal in 1993 (jpUg;gyp g[j;jfk;) made by the defendants 2 to
15 are illegal, improper, incorrect, unbiblical, ultravires of the Canon Law
and hence invalid.
b) for a declaration that the
defendants 2 to 14 are incompetent to discharge the office of the
Archbishops/Bishops, since they are very much against the vatican (Holy See)
c) for a permanent injunction
restraining the defendants 2 to 15 or their priests from using the Missal 1993
(Tamil Liturgical Book – 1993 jpUg;gyp g[j;jfk;
)
in all the Roman Catholic Churches under their jurisdiction and for costs.
1 . The averments set out in the
plaint in brief read as follows:-
The plaintiff 1 to 3 are members of Roman
Catholic Church by virtue of Canon Law 842 (2).
All the plaintiffs are deeply concerned about the well being of the
Roman Catholic Church. Satan came to the garden Eden, in the form of a sarpet
and temped woman and man to eat the forbidden fruit. God caused the Satan and
said “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your see and her
seed; he shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel”. Thus God was to
born as a human to redeem man kind who was those tempted by Satan. The
incarnation of God took place, this for the redemption of Humanity.
Jesus Christ, the incarnated
God lived a life of purity in this world for 33 years. He was crucified and
died on the cross, to redeem the Humanity from eternal damnation. On the 3rd
day he rose again from his death-resurrection of Christ-as revealed already to
His Apostles and later ascended into Heaven with His Body and Soul. The
Apostles later wrote on His life and His teachings in this world to the
Humanity and this text is called the “Gospel” of the Church- the “New
Testament”. The compilation earlier
history before Christ and what the prophets forecasted about Him is the “Old
Testament”. Both these are known as the
“Holy Bible”.
The Roman Catholic Church is
being ruled by the Popes in succession till date. The Pope under this authority
formed Ecclesiastical Districts (Dioceses) all over the world to be
administered by the Bishops. The Bishops in their turn formed the parishes in
their jurisdiction, to be administered by the parish priests.
The Pose, Bishops and the
Priests from the hierarchic governing body of the Church are to live according
to this teachings of Jesus Christ and teach them to the children of God
enabling them to lead a holy life and attain the eternal Kingdom of God after their
death.
The Holy Roman Catholic
Church has released the article of faith, through its dogmas, creed and
doctrines (Magisterium). As such the members of the church have to accept the
magisterium verbatim and follow them.
The code of Canon Law was promulgated
for the Latin Rites in the year 1917 which was renewed in 1983 and released
this formation of Canon Law which can be taken as the “Procedure Code”. There
are about 14 Ecclesiastical Districts-Dioceses-in Tamil Nadu and all these 14
dioceses follow the Latin Rite. Hence the entire Catholic Church in Tamil Nadu
is bounded by the “Code of Canon Law”.
The defendants 2 to 14 who
are in the authority over the Ecclesiastical Districts are thus bound by the
Canon 392 (2). Further the most salient and foremost of all, the worships in
the Catholic Church is the Liturgy of Holy Mass. The Bishop or the priest who consecrate in
the liturgy of Holy Mass become another Christ- “Altar Christ”.
The second Vatican Council
that concluded in 1965, gave permission to celebrate the Mass in the Local
vernacular language. With this permission, the Roam Missal was translated into
vernacular languages and Tamil also. The mass was celebrated in Tamil. The
tamil translation of the liturgical prayers and text that formed the liturgical
Book- jpUg;gyp g[j;jfk;- Missal-received the consent of Rome and put into
application in 1970. Later it was updated in 1975 and released in 1979, both
with “Prior Review” from Vatican.
There are specific
instruction that thee should be a “prior Review” by the Holy see for any
translations or any alterations that are to be effected by the defendants in
the liturgical books of the mass. Canon 838 (iii) stipulates prior review
unambiguously.
The defendants 2 to 14 after
publishing the edition of first vernacular Missal in 1970, further changed it
and released in 1979, duly obtaining the “Prior Review” of Vatican. But in
1993, the defendants 2 to 14 made further unwarranted and improper changes in
the liturgical books and released it for use in all the catholic churches,
without obtaining the “Prior Review” of the Holy See as stated above and thus
the defendants 2 to 14 have by-passed deliberately and disobeyed the specific
Rules of Vatican and over-stepped their authority.
The Vatican has also
restricted the use of any addition or deletion or alter and text to the
individual likes, as against the text prescribed in the liturgical books. In the Canon 846 (1) states that “the
liturgical books, approved by the competent authority, are to be faithfully
followed in the celebration of the sacraments.
Accordingly, no one may on a personal initiative add to or omit or alter
anything in those books.” But the defendants 2 to 14 and their priests had
acted very much against the above rule it has become a common practice for them
to sue their own anaphora of innovative in addition or omission of words from
the prescribed text, to suit their individual fancy. Thus the defendants 2 to
14 are acting against the Vatican instructions and the authority of law.
The General Instructions
(Rubrics) of the liturgical books is that the priest as the celebrant of the
Holy Mass should have the vestments: Alb, stole and chasuble. But the priests do not generally put on the
Alb, a white long-flowing inner vestment. In the Holy mass, the encharist
prayer is the centre and highpoint of the entire celebration. Vatican has given due permission
(Prot.n.CD.307/77 dated 08.06.1977) for the use of the following words in the act
of consecration that is
“ ,J c';fSf;fhf ifaspf;fg;gLk; vd; rhPuk;**
“This is My Body
being offered for you”
It
has further made a condition that “nothing contrary can prevail against this”
(Contrarilis quibuslibet minime obstantibus).
But the defendants 2 to 14 have now changed it without the “Prior
Review” of Holy See (Vatican) to pronounce as
** ,J c';fSf;fhf ifaspf;fg;gLk; vd; cly;**
“ This is my body
being offered for you”
This
is where the Transubstantiation takes place i.e. the Bread being physically
transformed to the Real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in Body, Soul and
Divinity. The translated word of rhPuk; and cly; cannot give the very same meaning in the
general usage and it is further revealed in the Tamil-English Dictionary that
cly; (UDAL) : Body – Human or Brute
rhPuk; (SAREERAM)
- The living Human Body, the
tenement of the soul.
The
word rhPuk;
alone can bring in the really
theologically divine meanings of “Transubstantiation” to reveal the Real
Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in Body and Soul more so in “ His
Divinity”. But the defendants innovated
translation, certainly uprooted the faith on the real meaning of the
“Transubstantiation”. Hence the
translation of Missal 1993 edition by the defendants 2 to 14 are against the
ruling of Vatican.
The plaintiffs are shocked
and at a loss to note the grave mistakes committed by the defendants in the
revised missal of 1993 that has made them for further translation from 1979.
The defendants have made incorrect and irrelevant translation of the texts in
1993, they have blatantly done it to suit their whims and fancy. This translated versions have diluted and denied
the doctrinal teachings on the TRUTH that were received and being received by the
faithful as well as the plaintiffs from the Holy See. The defendants have,
through the incorrect translation, purposely with ill will produced false
liturgical prayers much against the intentions and faith a taught by the Holy
Church with the sole determination to destroy the faith and distort the
faithful from the TRUTH and to them in the utter confusion on the truth that is
to be discriminated from the Satantic work in their ongoing journey towards the
goal of the eternal life in the Kingdom of God. As such the defendants have
destroyed the religious feelings of the plaintiffs by obstructing them from the
doctrinal teachings of the Holy See that it is to be meticulously obeyed and
followed and thus denying their “right of worship” which is guaranteed under
Art.25 (1) of the Constitution of India.
The defendants have made the
Tamil translation of the text of the Missal 1993, not based on its relevance to
the words of God nor His intentions, but to their whims and fancy. The word
“Eternal Life” is being diluted in their translation as “Life of Fullness”.
Lead us not into temptation as Brotherly, take part in the Liturgy with pure
heart as to enliven the neighbours, attend the Holy Mass with faith as to
attend the renewed service, Salvation as Development, Mercy as Parallel Society
and Eternal Reward as United peace/Union of peace.
The defendants 2 to 14 have
also seen the word “Sin” is totally removed from the text of the Missal 1993.
The plaintiffs have been all along receiving the right of proper teaching from
the Church in the right direction to attain the Kingdom of Heaven which ha now
been suppressed or camouflaged and put into total confusion as to the Truth or
heretic. Hence the defendants 2 to 14 have lost their right to lead their
flock.
The defendants have willfully done
certain erroneous and illegal translations in the liturgical book in 1993 with
the sole intention of, creating confusion and diverting the faithful and the
plaintiff from their faith on the Authoritative teachings of the Roman Catholic
Church. Such erroneous and illegal
translations can be clearly seen in the 1993 translation of the Missal. There
are 4 tenets in the Liturgy which are dabbled by the defendants in the name of
translation. The tenets are Sacrifice, Eternal Life, Sin and
Doctrine/Dogma/Creed. The translation of 1979 has been completely given go bye
in the translation of 1993 and the defendants have deliberately to divert the
faith of the catholic laymen, especially the plaintiffs herein against the
teaching of Vatican by willfully dropping the Resurrection of our Body under
the guise of irrelevant translation.
The introduction of false prayers as a
result of the 1993 translation made the defendants and their priests deny the
catholic particularly the plaintiffs herein of their spiritual graces through
this Liturgy of Holy Mass. Thus the defendants 2 to 14 have failed in their
duty to lead the catholic lay people as well as the plaintiffs and cheated them
and hence the defendants 2 to 14 have lost their right of authority of holding
their office. The chaotic action of the
defendants have created the situation wherein the plaintiffs -lay catholic –
cannot keep quite. According to the canon
229(1) the plaintiffs are duly bound to safeguard themselves from the cunningly
manipulated deeds and acts of the defendants.
The cannon 229(1) states “ Lay people have the duty and the right to
acquire the knowledge of Christian teaching which is appropriate to each one's
capacity and condition, so that they may be able to live according to this
teaching to proclaim it and if necessary to defend it, and may be capable of
playing their part in the exercise of the apostolate”. Based on this duty, the plaintiffs have sent
a notice to the defendants 2 to 14 on 7.12.1994 with a request to withdraw the
Missal of 1993 introduced by the defendants from all churches under their
jurisdiction a missal that is against the teaching and intention of the Holy
Church. Till date, there is no response.
Hence the suit.
2 . The averments set
out in the written statement filed by 4th defendant read as
follows:-
At the outset the entire
matter referred in the plaint and the relief sought for in the plaint are
purely religious in nature, touching with the “spiritual” and “ceremonial
matters” connected with the Catholic faith, under the supreme authority of the
Holy Pope and the Hierarchical church consisting of the Bishops all over world,
specifically in this case, the Bishops of Tamil Nadu.
Both under the code of Civil
Procedure and the Canonical Law of the church, this Hon'ble court has no
jurisdiction to go into the veracity of the church's Authority in the matter of
Liturgical prayers, which involves spiritual and religious aspects of the
church, concerning the Liturgy used in the church's Devotional prayers.
The plaintiffs unnecessarily
dragged the Ministers of the church (Bishops) before this Hon'ble court,
without any authority whatsoever to interfere in the religious domain of the
Catholic Church, which is well within the jurisdiction of the Bishops as per
the code of Canon Law of the Church.
There is no locus standi for
the plaintiffs to question the validity of the Liturgical translations as made
and pronounced by the competent authority of the Tamil Nadu Bishops Council.
Under the code of Canon Law governing the spiritual and religious aspects of
the Catholic Church, Canon 1401 categorically prohibits the interference of any
other authority except the Roman Catholic church in all matters, including the
Liturgy of the church. Hence under canon law, the plaintiffs have no right or
locus standi to drag the ministers of the church in implementing the revision
in the Holy prayer Book of “The Missal”.
The plaintiffs have no
authority to represent any body or any body of persons within the Catholic
Church, to go into the question referred to in the plaint. All disciplined
Catholics are subject to the code of canon law of the church in following the
dictates of the Church. If there is any doubt in the proclamation of the
Dogmas, Doctrines and Creeds, which are likely to be diluted due to the
translations in the Liturgy, the faithfuls are absolutely free, well within the
church authorities to approach the proper Superiors and Doctors of the church
to get clarified, and in no way they are empowered to bring the matter before a
civil court to get a religious sanction, for that will amount to an Anathema.
The Pope and the Bishops are
hierarchical successors to the apostles to the Lord Jesus Christ. The entire
allegation contained in the plaint touches only with the religious and
spiritual rights of the Catholic Christian Community which is well within the
exclusive domain of the Catholic Hierarchical Church and no civil rights are
involved. Therefore the plaintiffs are
abusing the process of this Hon'ble court in prosecuting a purely religious and
spiritual matter which is clearly barred by Sec.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Besides the Constitutional protection guaranteed under Art.25 of the
Constitution of Indian, prohibits the
interference in the fundamental rights of the defendants in upholding their
spiritual interpretations concerning the ceremonies, prayers, etc., of the particular religious community.
The ordained priests are not
in the hierarchical authority of the church but it is purely in the domain of
the Bishops led by the Holy Father, namely the Holy Pope. This is spoken out by
Canon 357. The plaintiffs have misconstrued the spirit of the entire code of
canon law and have picked up piece meal to suit their ill-conceived and
irrelevant adaptations, to bring about an imaginary cause of action against the
defendants without any authority or jurisdiction even under the code of canon
law. The defendants as head of the Tamil Nadu Bishops council are duly and well
authorised to take care of the “Missal of 1993” and the Liturgical translation
made thereto are correct, legal, biblical and well within the ambit of the code
of canon law of the church.
In adopting the Tamil
translated words in the “Missal of 1993”, fidelity to the original Latin
text and sensitivity to the present day usage and literary expressions of the
Tamil language, especially the ecclesiastical tradition, have been the two fundamental
principles which have guided the committee appointed for the work of
translation. The work is only a
revision and not a new translation as alleged by the plaintiffs. The defendants
observed the necessary procedural formalities as applicable in thee
translations of revision, well within the Authority of the Holy See. Care has
been taken to render the original Latin text in the expressions in use in Tamil
and Tamil Nadu. It is absolutely false to state that the defendants have made
incorrect and irrelevant translation of the text in 1993 and that they have
bluntly done it to suit their whims and fancies.
It is not only pure and
simple spiritual and religious matter will within the domain of the Authority
of the Bishops of Tamil Nadu in executing the well considered translations by a
regular Authoritative committee, but also an act which has been approved
unanimously by all the Catholic Bishops of Tamil Nadu. The authority of the
Bishops in such matters has been clearly stated in Canon 375 and 756.
The plaintiffs are not
competent to question the validity of the Authority of the Bishops of Tamil
Nadu in the application of the “Liturgical Prayers” as translated in Tamil for
the “Missal of 1993”. The English
translation of the Tamil versions in the “Liturgical Prayers” as submitted by
the plaintiffs is incorrect and not in accordance with the actual Tamil version
of the “Missal” of both 1979 and 1993.
The allegations made by the
plaintiffs against the Authority of the Church namely the Bishops of Tamil Nadu
in these matters smells of bad taste and is with some ulterior motive behind
their intentions and it is no wonder that they have used the most defamatory,
mischievous and vituperative language against the Authority of Tamil Nadu
Bishops. The introduction of the “Missal of 1993” is not confusing to the
faithfuls who constitute the Catholic faith more than 35 lakhs in the State of
Tamil Nadu alone. It is only the plaintiffs are approaching towards Satanic
influence, for reasons best known to them. There is no erroneous translations
in the Liturgical Book (Missal of 1993). The defendants reserve right to sue
the plaintiffs for defamatory statement and compensation.
The translation “Udal” is
proper and the translated Liturgy is used in the “Missal of 1993” is in use all
over the Catholic Churches in Tamil Nadu since the year 1993 and there has been
no confusion whatsoever in any place in Tamil Nadu. The entire Catholic
community is in harmony with the church and is subject to the Legitimate
Authority of the respective Tamil Nadu Bishops. The sacred duties and rights
conferred on the Bishops by the “Divine Will” under their “Holy Faith” is not
subject to any civil rights or office as understood by in Civil Laws. It is not the letters that count but the
“spirit” of the faithful and the Bishops in enunciating the sacred values of
the liturgy, that matters. The canon law 299 (1) cited by the plaintiffs is not
relevant to their claim. On the contrary, it is the duty of the defendants to enforce
liturgical norms in their respective diocese as envisaged in the right spirit
of the “Code of Canon Law”. The Canon law 838 (4) is relevant to read in this
context. The clarifications called for by the members of the church on various
occasions have been clarified at appropriate recognized forums within the
jurisdiction of each diocese and hence there was no necessity to send
individual replies to the plaintiffs letter dated 7.12.1994.There is no merits
in the case of the plaintiffs besides being a bar on jurisdiction for a civil
court to go into a solely religious and spiritual matter, both under the Civil
Procedure Code and the code of Canon Law. Hence the suit is liable to be
dismissed with exemplary costs.
3 . The suit against first defendant and 16th
defendant has been dismissed as given up.
Memo filed by the other defendants to adopt the written statement of 4th
defendant.
4 . On the basis of the
above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial.
1 . Whether the plaintiffs are
entitled to get declaration as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled
to get permanent injunction as
prayed for?
3 . Whether this court has no
jurisdiction to try the suit?
4 . To what other relief?
5 . In view of
I.A.No.19244/2002 allowed, the following additional issues were framed
on 19.07.2007.
1 . Whether the Constitutional protection guaranteed
under Art.25 of the Constitution of Indian is applicable to the defendants?
2 . Whether the defendants
have authority to make translation from Missale Romanum without obtaining
review from Holy See of Vatican, Rome?
3 . Whether the defendants
have right to translate without the order from Apostle Vatican as per Canon Law 838 (iii) ?
4 . Whether the defendants have
right to release the Tamil translation of Liturgical prayers without getting
permission from Holy See as per Canon Law 838 (iii)?
5 . Whether the defendants
received assent from Vatican for translation of
Udal in the place of Sareeram?
6 . Whether the translation
of Liturgy Book of 1993 has been done with fidelity?
7 . Whether the translation
released in the year 1993 contrary to the Liturgy Book of the year 1962 is
sustainable?
8 . Whether the defendants 2
to 14 are entitled to continue the office or not?
9 . Whether the translation
of the year 1993 released without prior permission and approval from Apostle as
per Canon Law 838 (iii) can be used by Catholic Churches?
6 . On the side of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff
himself was examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 were marked. On the side of the defendants, one witness
was examined as DW1 and no document was marked on their side.
7 . Additional Issues
No.1
Let this court decide the
issues materially involved in the suit in the name of god, the Jesus Christ.
Before going into the merits of the factual aspects canvassed on both sides, it
is imperative upon this court to go into the defense which are so technical
raised on the side of the defendants, the terms which would refer hereafter to
defendants 2 to 15 in view of the fact that the suit against defendants 1 and
16 were already dismissed as given up. On the side of the defendants a plea has
been raised that except the second defendant, all other defendants are situated
out side the jurisdiction of this court, the other Bishops rendering spiritual
service in Tamil Nadu have not been impleaded into the suit, consequently the
suit is bad for non-joinder of parties, the suit has not been filed by the
plaintiffs in representative capacity and as dealt with by the issue above
referred, the civil court has no jurisdiction to go into the veracity of the
church's Authority in the matter of Liturgical prayers, which involves
spiritual and religious aspects of the church, concerning the Liturgy used in
the church's Devotional prayers. In this
regard, the defendants have taken rescue of Art.25 of Constitution of India
which reads as follows:-
Freedom
of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.-
(1)
Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of
this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the
right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.
(2)
Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or
prevent the State from making any law-
(a)
regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular
activity which may be associated with religious practice;
(b)
providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious
institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
Explanation
I.- The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the
profession of the Sikh religion.
Explanation
II.- In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be
construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or
Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be
construed accordingly.
However
it is made crystal clear that proselytization affects the freedom of conscience
and thereby, conversion by force, fraud and inducement is prohibited in Rev.Stainislaus
Vs.State of M.P., 1977(1) SCC 677.
Therefore it is the
application of Art.25 of constitution of India, which is not so blanket and it
has to interpreted in proper sense and perspective. Simply because the affairs are connected with
religious prayer or rituals, the dispute itself
cannot be branded as purely religious in nature. At this juncture it is
quiet imperative to see the definition of Religion. The term Religion is
commonly defined as an organized set of beliefs and practices directed toward spiritual concerns that are shared by a community. Like wise
“spiritual” is defined as follows:-
“Devotion to the immaterial
part of humanity and nature rather than worldly things such as possessions; an
orientation to people’s religious, moral, or emotional nature”.
The word Ritual means
pertaining or relating to, connected with rites. The rite is a formal procedure
or act in a religious or other solemn observance.
Therefore mere translation
and publication of Liturgical book by Bishops cannot be given the colour of
religious and spiritual one simply because
the prayers are read while worshiping in church.
In the interlocutory application in
I.A.No.16932/1995 filed for ad-interim
injunction sought for by the plaintiffs, though the application was dismissed
by this court, the observation goes as follows:-
“Therefore the learned advocate for the petitioner
stated that it is
acceptable
that this court has the jurisdiction to try the suit.”
However
the said order has not been impugned on the side of the defendants for the said
observation and findings prima facie made by this court while passing the
considered order of dismissal.
It is the arguments advanced
on the side of the defendants that if the plaintiffs are really aggrieved, they
should have raised the issues raised in the suit before the ecclesiastical
forum and not a Civil Court and the disputes raised by the plaintiffs are in
the realm of doctrine and theological question warranting, relief from the
ecclesiastical forum. However it is obvious that no such ecclesiastical forum
is in vogue in our country and it is confined to the most organized Catholic
Church society of England. Canon law is the name for
the Catholic Church's order and discipline, structures, rules, and procedures.
Both the plaintiffs and the defendants are placing their reliance upon Canon
Law. The defendants have taken rescue of the Canon Law 1401 which runs
as follows:-
By
proper and exclusive right the Church adjudicates;
1.cases
concerning spiritual matters or connected with the spiritual;
2.
the violation of ecclesiastical laws and all
those cases in which there is a question of sin in respect to the
determination of culpability and the imposition of ecclesiastical penalties.
The careful and minute perusal of
Canon law 1401 would disclose apparently that it speaks about spiritual matters
which are exclusively religious. However translation and release of Liturgical
book without prior review and proper approval from Vatican as fairly conceded
by Dw1 will not come within the realm of
doctrine and theological question warranting, relief from the ecclesiastical
forum. The particulars of forums available under Canon Law is not surfaced on the side of defendants and when the
translation and release of Liturgy Book
of 1993 is not in accordance to Canon Law, the defendants lost their locus
standi to dictate the plaintiffs only to approach the forums under Canon Law simply for the purpose
of defending the suit by one way or
other.
Per contra, on the side of
the plaintiffs, the canon 229(1) is cited which reads thus:-
“Lay people have the duty and
the right to acquire the knowledge of Christian teaching which is appropriate
to each one's capacity and condition, so that they may be able to live
according to this teaching to proclaim it and if necessary to defend it, and
may be capable of playing their part in the exercise of the apostolate”.
If necessary to defend it
which is the obligation imposed by the canon law to lay people entitles the
plaintiffs to issue notice dated 7.12.1994 marked as Ex.A12 to the defendants
and the explanation offered by the defendants in their written statement that
the clarifications called for by the members of the church on various occasions
have been clarified at appropriate recognized forums within the jurisdiction of
each diocese and hence there was no necessity to send individual replies to
Ex.A12 cannot augur well and will
not suffice in any forum of law. Rather
it is absolutely an after thought made for the purpose of defending the suit.
Therefore the translation of
Missal in 1993 which is the subject matter of the suit though put into
application in church, it itself is not religious, spiritual or ritual thereby
debarring the civil court to entertain and try the suit.
At the time of filing of the
suit before the Hon'ble High court of judicature at Madras, the plaintiffs have
sought for grant of leave to sue the defendants in the suit and it was granted.
When concededly the 2nd defendant comes within the jurisdiction of
this court, the plaintiffs need not be harassed to file separate suit as
against each and every diocese and the single
suit filed before this court in a comprehensive way is unambiguously
maintainable in law. It at all any decree is passed by this court it is going go bind upon the defendants who
are parties to the suit and as stated earlier the suit against defendants 1 and
16 has been already dismissed. The
decree is going to be in personum and not in rem. Hence there is no strength in
the version of the defendants that the suit is hit by non-joinder of necessary
parties. The plaintiffs are the authors
of the plaint and they have right to choose their rivals or opponents. The issue is resolved accordingly.
Additional
issues 2 to 9
The whole suit is based on
the Code of Canon Law marked as Ex.A1 which is in fact relied on by both
sides. It is quite imperative to see
Canon Law 838 (2) which reads as follows
“ It is the prerogative of the
Apostolic See to regulate the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, to
publish liturgical books and review their vernacular translations, and to be
watchful that liturgical regulations are everywhere faithfully observed.”
It
is also pertinent to see Canon Law 838 (3) which reads thus:
“ It pertains to Bishops' Conferences
to prepare vernacular translations of liturgical books, with appropriate
adaptations as allowed by the books themselves and, with the prior review of
the Holy See, to publish these translations.”
In addition Canon Law 846 (1) mandates as follows:
“ The liturgical books, approved by
the competent authority, are to be faithfully followed in the celebration of
the sacraments. Accordingly, no one may
on a personal initiative add to or omit or alter anything in those books.”
Once
it was a common law and later an Act for
protection of intellectual
property rights came into force and as such simply because meddling with the
contents of a liturgical book prohibited by Canon Law, it cannot be stated that
the act of the defendants and the dispute raised by the plaintiffs are falling
under the realm of doctrine and theological question.
Though the counsel for
defendants made a weak and feeble submission that the missal in 1993 marked as
Ex.A8 is only revision of missal 1979
and not a translation, the categorical evidence of DW1 in his cross examination
reads contra to that and the excerpt is furnished below.
“
In Ex.A8, it is pointed out that it is a translation. It is not necessary to get any approval for
any new edition or translation. For
translation, approval from the HOLY SEE
is necessary. I have not obtained
any approval for Ex.A8.”
In the written arguments
filed on the side of the defendants also in para 9 it is canvassed that the
translated prayer has been universally accepted by the faithful catholic in the state of Tamil Nadu and right from the
year 1995 till today, no faithful catholic attending the Mass has raised any
hue and cry over the translated Missal as released in the year 1993. In the written statement also when there is
no whisper of the Missal 1998 is only a revision, the arguments advanced like
that cannot be countenanced by court of law.
Now coming to the way in
which translation has been done in Ex.A8, the impugned one, it is quite
relevant to read the consecration
prayers which are not conveying proper meaning at all and on the contrary
erroneous, improper and arbitrary. They
are
O Lord ! having been filled with this food for our spiritual
nourishment, we beseech you to teach us by the participation
in this
mystery, we may judge wisely the earthly things and
cling
to things that are full of life.
It
must be heavenly life which will connote
the meaning of spiritual life and the word full
of life would refer to worldly life.
Take this, all of you, and eat it,
This
is my BODY which will be given up for you.
Take
this, all of you and drink from it
This
is the cup of my blood
The
blood of the new and everlasting covenant
It
will be shed for you and for all
So
that sins may be forgiven
Do
this in memory of me
The original translation
which stands good is marked as Exhibit A6 which reads as under
Take this, all of you, and eat it,
This
is my SAREERAM which will be given up for you.
Take
this, all of you and drink from it
This
is the cup of my blood
The
blood of the new and everlasting covenant
It
will be shed for you and for all
So
that sins may be forgiven
Do
this in memory of me
It absolutely
excessive and overstepping on the part of the defendants to translate as Udal in the place of Sareeram It
looks so awkward and illogical to use the word
Udal; in
the place of Sareeram; and the
explanation offered by the defendants' side that Sareeram;
is a Sanskrit word is illusory and moon shining one. In Tamil Udal
; in the said context would refer to a dead body. Only the persons of conscience and deep knowledge in Tamil
Literature and language alone can be expected to rake up the issue and the
defendants cannot take advantage of
other Catholics attending the Mass did not raise hue and cry over the
translated Missal released in the year 1993.
It is also the claim of the plaintiffs that the word eternal life,
salvation, mercy and eternal reward have been
removed from their faith, diluted and misrepresented by improper and
illegal translation which cannot be ruled out on careful scrutiny of the
contents of 1993 translation Ex.A8 with 1979 translation marked as Ex.A2. The word sin has been dropped and it gives
support to the contentions of the plaintiffs that the defendants are misleading
and confusing the catholic layman.
Even assuming for a moment
that this court cannot adjudge anything about the correct translation, coming
to the crux of the dispute in Ex.A9, the name of the Bishops find a place and
the alleged approval of them reads as follows:
A little change has been
introduced in the words of consecration.
That, we publish after
consultations in our meetings and after
obtaining the approval
of the Holy See. Hence from the day
this Missal will come to
use authoritatively, only these words
of consecration shall be
used.
M. Arockiasamy,
Archbishop of Madurai
Michael Augustine ,
Archbishop of Pondicherry- Cuddalore,
Casimir Gnanathickam,
Archbishop of Madras-Mylapore,
Packiam Arockiasamy,
Bishop of Thanjavur,
Ambrose, Bishop of
Coimbatore
Irudayaraj, Bishop of
Palayamkottai
Aruldhas James, Bishop
of Ootacamund
Michael Bosco Duraisamy, Bishop of Salem
Amalanathar, Bishop of
Tuticorin
Edward Francis, Bishop
of Sivagangai
Leon Dharmaraj, Bishop
of Kottar
Remigius, Bishop of
Kumbakonam
Lawrence Gabriel, Bishop
of Tiruchirappally,
Nambikai Raj, Administrator,
Vellore.
This
declaration is absolutely a false and defrauding one and there is no document
available with the defendants to evidence that the translation of 1993 was approved by the Holy See. In fact in the written arguments also it is
reiterated that the translated Missal in the year 1993 has been approved by the
Holy See of Vatican. Whereas in Ex.A10
Prot.n.CD 307/77 alone has been mentioned and it is nothing but Ex.A4 and
Ex.A5. It throws much light on the fact
that each and every catholic of Tamil Nadu going through Ex.A8 is defrauded and
misled, consciously or unaware of it. More so the DW1 in his cross examination
deposed as follows:-
It is
correct that the permission granted in June 8, 1977 in Exhibit A8 is used in
the Missal of 1993 as Exhibit “A10. It
is not correct that we have not obtained the permission of Missal of 1993. We got permission and the
permission is not printed in the Exhibit A10 is correct. It is correct to state
that We have not printed the permission granted by the Apostolic See in the Missal of 1993.
From
these readings, it goes without saying that the Ex.A8 has been released without
bringing it to the knowledge of Apostle
in Vatican and as such the release of Ex.A8 itself is quite illegal and
offensive. Such being the case, the
defendants cannot wash their hands by contending that Ex.A8 has close nexus
with religion and spirituality, the issue has to be raised only before
ecclesiastical forum and it is barred by Sec.9 of CPC. Sec.9 of CPC stipulates that the courts shall
have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which
their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. In case of the
defendants did not get prior review and sanction from Apostle of Vatican,
releases the translated version Ex.A8 unilaterally at their whims and fancies
it is one thing. But under the guise of
sanction obtained from Holy See, the Ex.A8 released with the approval Ex.A4 and
Ex.A5 which are pertaining to the translation of 1979 absolutely false within
the purview of disposal by this court. The said act of misleading,
misrepresenting and mischievous release of Ex.A8 surely affects the civil right
of the plaintiffs who are one among the lay people to defend in case of
necessity as per Canon 229 (1). It also attracts criminal liability
for penal action.
25 . On the side of the defendants, AIR 1982 Madras 170 is
relied on which is about right to take deity from one temple to another and if
is held that “the plaintiffs have established a customary right to worship the
deity by taking it from the main temple to the Govindasamy temple on the tenth
day of Chitrai festival. As the matter pertains to a civil right, the
plaintiffs will have declaration and other prayers incidental to that
declaration which have been asked for in the plaint, the trial court rightly
granted the decree”.
26. The defendants' side placed their reliance upon AIR 1994
MADRAS 27 which is relating to performance of rituals of following
baptism by immersion on personal confession of faith and the commemoration of
Lord's death in breaking of bread. No doubt it is not a civil right and Sec. 9
of C.P.C prohibits the civil court to
have jurisdiction over the said issue. But the issue materially involved in the
present suit on hand is completely different and the aforesaid authority has
nothing to do with the facts and circumstances of the present case which is
concerned with translation by false and bogus representation of approval by
Holy See.
27.Coming to
the precedent 2003 (2) CTC 577 cited by the defendants, it is in
relation to building of churches and it is only the civil courts decided the
whole issue. The features of Canon Law has been elaborated in the judgment by
quoting the judgments of the Apex Court. However this authority can no way come
to the rescue of the defendants.
28.On the side
of the defendants, in their written arguments, it is emphatically urged that the
plaintiffs along with one U.Joseph Benedict, filed a suit in O.S.No. 15874/1996
in which defendants 2,4 and two more persons were arraigned as rival parties;
in the suit they claimed that Arch Bishop of Madurai incurred automatic
“excommunication” and also for a declaration that the Holy Bible translated by
them into Thiruviviliam Is invalid, improper, incorrect, unbiblical; the defendants
of the said suit took out an application in l.A.No. 22613 of 2009 for rejection
of plaint under Or.VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.; stating that the dispute cannot be
decided by the civil court and the parties are governed by Code of Canon Law
and the suit was accordingly rejected by Learned II! Assistant City Civil
Judge, Chennai. The contested order passed in l.A.No. 22613 of 2009 in O.S.No.
15874/1996 is also annexed along with the written arguments. One thing is quiet
clear that what ever be the order passed by other City Civil Courts, it has no
binding upon this court. That apart, the learned III Assistant City Civil Judge
might be correct in deciding that “excommunication" claimed is purely a
matter of faith. Doctrinal and theological question warranting ecclesiastical
relief. But the printing and publication of translated version in vernacular
language by giving wrong information about its authenticity will not come
within the purview of any such things and the ratio of the order in rejecting
that suit has nothing to do with the back drop and merits of the present suit
on hand. The defendants cannot take it as granted that whatever mischief they
can do, it is seldom possible for any body to bring it to the knowledge of Holy
See of Vatican and under the guise of questioning the jurisdiction of civil
courts to entertain the law suits, they can escape from the clutches of law. At
no stretch of imagination the defendants could be justified in challenging the
locus standi of the plaintiffs to approach the civil court by agitating that
the use of Missal is purely a matter between the Pontiff and the Ecumenical
Council. In case of a prior review and approval by Apostle See. the appropriate
authority in terms of Canon Law, then only it will be a matter of religious and
spirituality and when the way in which the Missal 1993 came into vogue itself
is illegal, it will come definitely under the domain of civil court. The
illegality cannot be cured by the cover of rendering spiritual service. Alas, the
translations are highly obnoxious, careless and confusing. That are not at all
warranted and by introducing Udal in the place of Sariram. the defendants can
neither contribute to the improvement of the language 'Tamil nor could convey
more substance through the word Udai to lay men. The evidence of Dwl and the
written arguments though claimed that the Missal 1993 was approved by the Holy
See of Vatican, it is falsified by non-production of any such approval and
Prot.n.CD 307/77 alone has been mentioned in Ex.AlO. The defendants are bereft
of documentary evidence to show that a committee was appointed for the work of
translation and the work is only a revision. The defendants blowing hot and
cold is liable to be deprecated in the eye of law. The issues are resolved
accordingly.
29 . Issues 1 to 4
Since the translation of 1993 itself is mulcted with illegality,
it cannot be allowed to be used thereby displacing the fundamentals of catholic
faith and the defendants are at liberty to release the same after subjecting it
to prior review and getting approval from Apostle See at Vatican. In such case
only the defendants can take the shield of want of jurisdiction of civil court.
Until then the translation of Missal 1993 is illegal, improper, arbitrary, ultravirus
and unbiblical only. In the materialistic world, after all the defective cars
sold out to customers are taken back by foreign companies, as such there is no
wrong in granting prohibitory injunction thereby restraining the defendants
from issuing Missal 1993 in Roman Catholic Churches under their ambit of
jurisdiction. However for the unilateral publishing of Missal 1993 which is a
part of the service of Bishops in churches, it cannot be held that they are
wholly incompetent to discharge the office of Archbishops/Bishops and on that
score only they cannot be branded that they are very much against the
principles of Vatican Holy See. The failure to get approval and preaching to
keep distance from god by improper translation by themselves cannot suffice to
disqualify the defendants from continuing their good office. The plaintiffs
have made out a case in their favour and the balance of convenience lies with
them only. The defendants who are apparently suffering from merits in respect
of factual aspects, failed miserably in their attempt of nonsuiting the
plaintiffs on sheer technicalities. If the civil court is not meddle with such
affairs of defendants which are illegal and offensive, attracting criminal
liability, everybody will have their own passion of releasing translations to
suit their convenience in total disruption to the holy and sacrament Missal.
30 , In the result, the suit is decreed in part by declaration
that the translation of Missal in 1993 < Thiruppali Puthagam made by
the defendants 2 to 15 are illegal, improper, incorrect, unbiblical, ultravirus of
the Canon Law and hence invalid and by grant of permanent injunction thereby
restraining the defendants 2 to 15 :or their priests from using the
Missal 1993 (Tamil Liturgical Book-1993, Thiruppali Puthagam ) in all Roman
Catholic Churches under the jurisdiction. The rest of the suit stands
dismissed. Considering the nature of the suit and the dispute resolved, the
parties should bear their own costs.
Dictated by me to Steno-typist directly, computerized by her.
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 10 day of September
2013
(IV Assistant judge)
Plaintiffs
side witness
PW1
Mr.C.Alex Benziger
Plaintiffs
side exhibits
Ex.A1 - The Code of Canon Law (book)
Ex.A2 Poosai Book (g{irg;g[j;jfk;)
Ex.A3 - Sacred congregation for the
sacraments and divine worship
Ex.A4 Sacra Congregation
Pro Sacraments ET Cultu Divino
marked
portion in Ex.A3
Ex.A5 Sacra Congregation
Pro Sacraments ET Cultu Divino
marked
portion in Ex.A3
Ex.A6 Sacra Congregation
Pro Sacraments ET Cultu Divino
marked
portion in Ex.A3
Ex.A7 Sacra Congregation
Pro Sacraments ET Cultu Divino
marked
portion in Ex.A3
Ex.A8 - Book Thiruppali (jpUg;gyp g[j;jfk;)
Ex.A9
- jkpHf Mah;fspd;
m';fPfhuk; in Ex.A8
Ex.A10 - Sacra
Congregation Pro sacramentis ET Cultu Divino in Ex.A8
Ex.A11 - jpUj;jpa
jpUg;gypg;g[j;jfk; xU tpkhprdk
Ex.A12 07.12.1994 Letter given by plaintiffs to the defendants
Ex.A13 22.06.2010 Letter given by the members and friends of CPMJA.
Defendants
side witness
DW1
Mr.FR.G.Rolington
Defendants
side exhibits
Nil
Dictated by me to Steno-typist,
computerized by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the
10th day of September 2013.
(
IV Assistant Judge )
Comments
Post a Comment