The Liar and Father of Lies

The Moderator of CSI Submits False Affidavit

It is sad to find the Ecclesiastics of CSI showing scant regard for the law of the land and the constitution of the Church. They seem to have become law unto themselves. In John 8:44, Jesus refers to his opponents as children of the devil and then goes on to describe the devil as a “liar and father of lies”. Of course this refers to their behaviour of obscuring the truth about Jesus Christ. But how would we understand the behaviour of the Moderator of the Church of South India and his fellow Bishops, if they grievously error on the side of falsehood questioning the very existence of a God who watches over us and our behavior?

It is with great dismay that these instances of grievous moral turpitude the Moderator of CSI are brought to the public. The Moderator had not only acted fraudulently to subvert the judicial system but also made a mockery of the democratic process in the dioceses.

The Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda, (Telangana State) issued an injunction in I. A. No. 340 of 2015 on 6th April 2015 restraining the Moderator and the Synod officers from making the proposed amendments to the present constitution of the CSI till 15-04-2015 when the matter would be heard in detail. The proposed amendments pertain to increasing the retirement age of the pastors and thereby that of the bishops from 65 to 67, extending the term of a Synod from 2 to 3 years and also taking away the democratic system of electing officers of the Synod and Dioceses.

However, without giving scant regard for the injunction/the judicial order and the law of this land, the Synod met on April 8 and 9 and passed the amendments to the constitution. The Synod General Secretary announced this decision of the synod to the Dioceses and others concerned on April 14 for further action by the Diocesan Councils.

Without any moral compunction, the moderator and the officers, in their sworn counter affidavit dated 15-04-2015 to the I.A. No. 340 of 2015 in the Additional District Court of Miriyalaguda, stated that “Synod Council that was convened on 8th and 9th April after a series of meetings of the constitution committee and the Synod Executive did not make any proposed amendments to the present constitution.” They submitted this blatant falsehood in their sworn affidavit to escape from the charge of contempt of Court. The Court disposed of the case accepting the sworn affidavit of the Moderator and with the rider that if any action follows contrary to this, the complainants can approach the court again.”

Since then, the moderator has been working overtime to call the meetings of the Diocesan Councils and ratify the amendments which, by his own sworn affidavit, had not been passed by the Synod. The CSI Constitution Ch. 13, 2/c, require ratification by two thirds of the Diocesan Councils for the amendments to come in force. Only amendments passed by the Synod can be put to vote in the Diocesan Councils. The moderator is guilty of committing contempt of court; he desecrated the very honorable position that he holds as Bishop and Moderator of the Church of South India by falsely representing facts before the honorable court; he made the Diocesan Council members of the 24 dioceses look fools by misleading them into voting for an amendment that by his own sworn affidavit, had not been passed. He had no legitimacy, moral or otherwise to continue in the leadership of the CSI.  

The Moderator has been resorting to arm-twisting, intimidations and all sorts of illegal means to get these amendments passed by the Diocesan Councils as early as possible. In the Malabar Diocesan Council, it was brought up for consideration and announced as passed, when it was not even an item in the agenda of the Council. The Moderator was physically present to bulldoze this amendment in the Malabar Diocesan Council. In the Diocesan Council of Kochi, the bishop introduced the amendment as passed by the Synod falsely representing facts or else making a fool of himself by believing the letter from the General Secretary. The bishop must explain and make his stand very clear. How do you deal with a moderator who utters blasphemous lies and makes a fool out of the believers?

These incidents point to an extremely alarming state of complete subversion of all democratic processes, especially in the context of an indifferent and apathetic laity. Why this much of haste to get a few amendments passed which do not pose any life and death issue except that the serving moderator’s intention to continue in the same office for another term would be thwarted. He needs compliant chum has to be in the positions of Treasurer and General Secretary so that his misdeeds and misappropriations can be covered. In Dioceses, the Bishops need compliant officers. Thus, their interests coincide to allow also sorts of illegalities.

The same interests are rallying around a bye-law which the Synod Executive proposed and subsequently, passed by the Synod in contravention of CSI constitution that all Officers are to be elected by ballot. The Bye-law addresses almost the same kind of concerns represented in the amendments to the constitution. Using these bye-laws which are against the very constitutional provisions of the CSI, elections were held in the Malabar Diocese; elections are announced to be held in the Cochi Diocese. Bishops and the moderator seem to be bent on taking the believers for a ride. The moderator must step down owning responsibility for this grave moral turpitude. If not, he will have to face criminal charges against fraudulent act of submitting false affidavit.  

We all make mistakes and as humans, Bishops also err. But, falsely representing facts by a sworn affidavit, calculated to cover the tracks is a very deliberate act of sin and it is an act of sin against the Holy Spirit and such a bishop cannot remain in office; he has lost all moral credibility to continue in this office. Or else the Synod Executive must meet and throw him out. Hope there will be remnant to stand up for the truth.

Mr. T. J. John

The Suitcase Politics Still Rules the Roost

The 'Suitcase' politics in the appointment of Bishops is reaching a point of absurdity and deviousness. In the Nandyal diocese, the elected panel for Bishopric was set aside by the Synod officers. The Moderator called a meeting of the Bishop’s Selection Committee to select one from among the panel as per the CSI constitution. But the meeting of the Selection Committee was cancelled in the last minute and the matter was referred to the Synod Executive Committee, which met in Bangalore. The Synod Executive, as per a cleverly crafted design, set aside the Bishopric panel to pave way for the appointment of a Bishop of their choice.



The reason for setting aside the panel was also not made known to the Synod Executive which met in Bangalore. Subsequently, certain allegations against the candidates were referred to the Court of the Synod. The term “court” refers to an institution that decides the merit of an allegation through a fair process of trial in which both parties have a chance to defend themselves. But the Court of the Synod, through an ex parte decision enabled the Synod Executive to reject the elected panel.



Sad to say, the candidates still have not been informed as to why their candidature had been rejected; instead the moderator had taken statements from them under duress. This is nothing but a travesty of justice. By this action, the Synod officers have been testing the waters to continue with their nefarious designs. (Read the open letter of Bishop Lawrence and the comments on it by Youth4CSI)



It is learned from reliable sources that the Synod officers are now planning to go the same route in the case of the panel for Bishopric in the North Kerala Diocese also. A lobby working in the Central Kerala Diocese with the tacit support of M. M. Philip and the cronies of Bishop K. P. Kuruvilla, are trying to create a smoke screen, spreading the canard that the election of the panel for Bishopric is invalid as the Diocesan Council that had elected the panel included Deacons, which is against the constitution of the CSI. This is nothing but an effort to fish in troubled waters and to bring in a “money bag” from the Central Kerala Diocese to the bishopric of North Kerala Diocese. In this context, we would like to enlighten the readers and the Christian public of the flowing facts:



1. Since the inception of the diocese, Deacons in active service were always members of the Diocesan Council. The 1984 Constitution of the NKD states (Ch 5/34-c): “Composition of the Diocesan Council: All Presbyters and Deacons in active service according to the Standing Service Rules of the Diocese.” The elections to the panel of the bishoprics of K. C. Seth, P. G. Kuruvilla, and K. P. Kuruvilla were made by Diocesan Councils constituted according to this constitutional clause. Nobody raised any objections regarding the validity of these elections.



2. None other than Mr. M. M. Philip was the observer to the Diocesan Council constituted as per 5/34-c, which elected Bishop Kuruvilla. He had not found any anomaly in this election. How does he now have a different reading of the situation?



3. The new constitution of the North Kerala Diocese, which came into effect on 10 February 2009 once again states that the Diocesan Council is composed of “All Presbyters and Deacons in active service of the diocese.” These re-statements of inclusion of the Deacons in active service are not without any reason. It represents the reformed historical legacy of the Basel Mission which did not have Bishops, but had a specific order of Deacons in addition to Presbyters that rendered active service in the church. This was all the more so in the context of not having enough Presbyters to shepherd all the parishes in the diocese. The Church of South India has always recognized separate constitutions for each diocese so that their distinct histories and traditions are respected and represented.



4. According to the CSI constitution Ch 5/5: “The Diocesan Council that exists at the time of the receipt of the mandate by the Secretary of the Council shall elect the panel.” Regardless of the composition of the Council, the panel for Bishopric was elected by “the Diocesan Council that existed at the time of the receipt of the mandate by the Secretary”. The election was held in the presence of synod observers and none had raised any concern.



5. If this election is null and void, and if the composition of the Diocesan Council is defective, all the elections that it had conducted must also be null and void including the election to the Synod. By the same argument, the Synod officers were elected by a defective Synod. They have no right to hold these offices.



6. The present Diocesan Council, which elected the panel to Bishopric in the North Kerala Diocese was constituted by the Synod appointed Administrative Committee of which the dual posts of Secretary and Treasurer were held by one and the same person, a close confidant of the CSI General Secretary, Mr. M. M. Philip, Com. Mohan Ancherry. Now the Synod cannot call into question the composition of the diocesan council which they themselves had directly constituted and about which they had never raised any question in this long history of association with CSI.



7. The question of composition that has been raised is purely of a technical nature; it does not make incursions into the rights of anybody or cause any inconvenience to anybody. When such is the case, it is to be prima facie rejected as arising from extraneous considerations that have nothing to do with justice or fair play or the life of the church. In cases like this, when the issue is purely that of technical nature, even the secular courts will respect conventions and precedence.



8. The Members of the present Diocesan Council who had not questioned this composition and who went along with the election cannot raise questions regarding the validity of the election at this late stage just because the result of the election was not in their liking. This is nothing but an effort to undermine the smooth running of the institutions of the Church and its democratic traditions.



It is as clear as day light that the present composition of the Diocesan Council does not in any way contravene the basic structure and content of the CSI Constitution and it had been consistently followed all these years without causing inconvenience or loss to anybody. It is our prayer that the Synod will not play second fiddle to these lobbies who are only interested in abuse of power for self-aggrandizement. The people in North Kerala Diocese had suffered enough under the rule of a despotic Bishop whose megalomaniacal ways had scattered ‘the sheep’ and destroyed congregations. If not for the sheep why do we need Bishops and Presbyters?  The Synod remained a silent spectator during these periods of turmoil. Why do we need the Synod? What service do they render to the people in the pew; how significant are they for the people who look for spiritual nourishment or lost in the vagaries of this world? The Synod and the Episcopacy in particular have become institutions that “tie up heavy loads and put them on the men’s shoulders.” People will no longer tolerate this nonsense; people are forced to think even of seceding and remaining independent. It is the future of our church that is at stake. Hope that the Synod officers will uphold the moral rectitude demanded of you and act with reason and probity and above all, as vicars of Jesus Christ.

Criminal Conspiracy and Cheating

Many good things have happened in the life of the diocese in the recent past; we are thankful to God that we have been able to restrain Bishop Kuruvilla from freely carrying out his devious designs and alienating the valuable assets of our church. We were able to stop him in his path to self-destruction and destroying our valuable assets and Christian witness. But more skeletons are falling out of the cupboard, the implications of which are far more than what we perceive on the surface. 

In an earlier post, we had brought to your attention the corruption involved in leasing out a valuable asset, a prayer hall in Munnar, to SN group. Now, we have learned that the SN group is not even paying any rent and that they are constructing another floor above the present structure without acquiring permission from the diocesan authorities.   We can only assume that they take this freedom with the silent consent of the bishop. It is learned that when this matter was taken up in the finance committee, the bishop was playing ignorant of the lease deed signed with the SN group. He signed and executed the deed; but neither do we have a copy of the lease deed to refer to nor does the bishop take any responsibility for what is happening at present. It is amply clear that the bishop alone knows the details of the deed which he had clandestinely entered into for his own pecuniary benefit and he is letting SN group benefit as per a mutually agreed design. It is important that we fix responsibility for this action and make the bishop accountable.

This is equally true of the English Bungalow in Fort Kochi. The lease agreement expired in February 2010; but no attempt has been made to retrieve the bungalow and the almost one acre of prime land in Fort Kochi, which would cost more than 100 crores as per the present value. This is also an instance of premeditated lethargy and indifference leading to someone making money at the expense of the church. These deals would cause incalculable loss and damage to the church. But who will be made responsible for this action and from whom will we recover the loss?

We cannot go on dilly dallying with these issues; we must face them squarely; and seek an inquiry into these and a number of other similar matters by an independent commission of experts. We should fix responsibility and make them accountable. Any slackness in this matter will not be pardoned by posterity. 

കപടമുഖം അനാവരണം ചെയ്യപെടുന്നു

A Bishop Gone Intemperate

The democratically elected representatives to the various committees of the North Kerala Diocese are now confronting a situation where they have to deal with a bishop who is neither amenable to the constitution of the church nor to the democratic practices and structures. He even seems to lack the moral compulsions derived from the fear of God, as he would rather be a law unto himself.



On 2 August 2011, the Working Committee of the diocese met in the Diocesan Office in Shornur to discuss certain vital matters concerning the life of the Church. Arbitrary and vindictive action by the bishop on pastors and pastorates and about 40 members of the laity remain sore issues affecting the life of the church. The elected representatives were keen to resolve these vexing issues. The construction of the bishop’s house had been progressing with no controls whatsoever. The bishop has arbitrarily deviated from the approved plan, estimate, structural specifications and contract causing an estimated embezzlement of Rs. 50 lakhs.



The appointments already done in the four higher secondary schools recently sanctioned by the government also remain sticky issues. When the elected members and officers in the Working Committee raised these issues, the bishop walked out abusing the members and also the Moderator of the CSI, challenging what the Moderator would be able to do to him. His haughty and intemperate behavior does not have any rhyme or reason, and is bordering on what is characteristic of an unbalanced mind.



The Clergy Secretary is in a quandary as the bishop insists that the minutes of the last Executive Committee must be changed as per his dictates. The Treasurer and the Clergy Secretary are threatened with dire consequences if they do not follow his line. There was an instance of food poisoning in one of our orphanages in the diocese (Chembola, near Kozhikode) and 25 children had to be admitted in the hospital causing interference of the District Collector and other government officials. To deal with the exigencies of the situation and prevent further damage to our public image, the Treasurer required Rs. 1 lakh and the bishop refused to sign the check. He seems to have no responsibility to deal with such exigencies that vitally affect the life and witness of the diocese.



The bishop is bent on creating an administrative impasse. He refuses to submit to the constitution of CSI or the diocese or any democratic institutions or norms. He has no fear of God. He does not have the emotional maturity to settle the issues at hand rationally and congenially. In this situation, he should resign from his position as bishop of the diocese or go on a long leave. Or else, the Synod should act decisively and intervene to resolve this impasse. If no relief comes from these sources, the people of the diocese will be forced to resort to extra-constitutional means causing much damage to our Christian witness. The situation in the diocese is deteriorating day by day causing an erosion of morale at all levels of the church, for which the whole of CSI may have to pay a very costly price.



Till the last meeting of the present diocesan Council, the bishop has been dubbing the popular resentment against him as the handiwork of a few individuals with certain ulterior motives. This has been disproved and today, the situation is such that the entire Executive Committee and the Working Committee are against the bishop. There is no way he can sideline the elected officers and get things done as per his dictates. In this situation, we seek the urgent intervention of the Synod and the moderator in this matter and bring relief to the suffering believers of this diocese.

T. J. John, Secretary, CSI North Kerala Laity Fellowship

"Father, forgive them for they do not know what they do"

This is an article written by Mr. K M Roy, published in Mangalam daily on 18th July 2011

Unfinished Agenda

Episcopal goondaism in full display

Section of congregation on Fasting inside the church

Beyond Victory and Defeat

The sweeping victory against the incumbent administration in the elections to the positions of officers, the Executive Committee and other committees in the North Kerala Diocesan Council, has brought to us much relief in the struggle against a bishop who, like an elephant in musth, had been running amok and creating so much havoc in the life of our church. Like a raving maniac, he razed to the ground indiscriminately any person and institution that happened to be on his way and appeared to undermine his inflated ego. He was a source of torment to so many gentle and humble ‘sheep’; he summarily removed devoted church members from their primary membership in the church; he put to suffering many who served in church related institutions by vindictive and arbitrary transfers; he cowed down the clergy and made them toe his line by threats of punishments; he put congregations that refused to toe his dictates to immense suffering by denying them pastors and sacraments; he used a coterie of infamous henchmen for his clandestine land deals, starting of higher secondary schools, and other lucrative financial deals associated with the developmental activities of the diocese. The bishop had become a law unto himself. The sweeping majority that could be established against the bishop has delivered a blow to his designs and it has become certain that he cannot continue in his arbitrary ways and that he should act as per the constitution of the CSI and the diocese.

This victory is a warning to all erred bishops in the CSI that people have started to rise up and they will no longer tolerate their unholy and arbitrary ways, and that they will be made accountable for all their wrong doings. It also comes as a morale booster to many who are fighting the entrenched evils of bishoprics all throughout the CSI, convincing them what a sustained, prayerful and devoted campaign could accomplish. If what had begun with the first expose on the clandestine land deal in Thalikulam on January 14, 2010 by a frail and humble old man, Mr. George Kurien, has achieved so much within a period of one and a half years, it can only be the Lord’s doing.

What we have seen is the resurgence of the laity in the North Kerala Diocese and their coming of age. It has been proved to us what a devoted and resurgent laity could accomplish in transforming the church. Only a revival of the laity throughout the length and breadth of CSI can save it from its present degeneration and disintegration. So, it has become imperative on us to expand this model of campaign and networking to the other dioceses in CSI. We have also realized the price that had to be paid for the lack of vigilance by God’s people: “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”. We need to continually remind ourselves and our fellow believers that a Bishop is only an Achen with a larger constituency and that they are not Thirumenis but Bishop Achens. Moreover, Achens are not any superior beings to laity, whose position is derived from the “pattom” (ordination) generously and reverently given to them by the community of believers, and therefore, they cannot ride roughshod over the laity with impunity. CSI does not subscribe to any theory of Episcopacy, but accepts “the historical episcopate in a constitutional form.” Within a feudal and patriarchal milieu, as that of ours, the bishopric can easily lent itself to become monarchical and dictatorial. In the hands of such power mongers as Bishop Kuruvilla, it can only be an instrument of self-glorification and domineering.

It is important that we should not glory in the apparent victory that we were able to win in the present election, but turn this occasion for glorifying God and with greater commitment work towards making God’s church what it ought to be. We cannot acquiesce in a change of leadership as it could well be a mere transfer of power without changing the way we think and act or run our institutions. We need to be continually vigilant and strengthen our laity fellowship across the diocese and beyond. Second, we should leave retribution to God; we should not keep any vengeance to the bishop. We should give all cooperation to the bishop to the extent that he would amend his ways and confine his role to that of a “father in God” and “chief shepherd”, instead of trying to interfere in the administration, particularly financial administration of the church. It is doubtful whether the bishop would be able to confine himself to such a spiritual role knowing his proclivities. But we should hold him in our prayers and expect the best from him. We should also leave to God’s judgment all those who have conspired and abetted in all his wrong doings.

What is apparently a moment of victory can be just the opposite. We all know the story of Elijah on Mount Carmel. (I King 18:20-40) God gave him a spectacular victory over the prophet of Baal. The fire of the Lord fell from heaven and consumed the burnt offerings in response to his prayer. But a little later we find Elijah, despite his spectacular victory, under a broom tree, fearing Jezebel, depressed and saying to God, “It is enough; now, O Lord, take away my life; for I am no better than my fathers.” (1King 19:1-8) Subsequently God asks him to refresh himself and run to Mount Horeb and stand before the Lord. Elijah did as God had told him and stood upon the mount before the Lord. Then we read, “Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave.” The Lord appears to Elijah in a “gentle whisper” and in the sound of the gentle whisper God said to him to carry out certain tasks in history, in the context of the social and political realities of his time: “You shall anoint Hazael to be king over Syria; and Jehu the son of Nimishi you shall anoint to be king of Isreal; and Elisha—you shall anoint to prophet in your place.” (1 King 19:15-16)

We may not be aware of the implications of these tasks demanded of Elijah; but it surely indicates to us that God’s presence need not be in our mountain top experiences; we may have to go and meet him in the demands of the valley. History belongs to those who are prepared to listen to the “gentle whisper” and in obedience take on the powers that be and work in ways that will undermine their evil designs. That is to bear ones cross and follow him. We cannot bask in an electoral victory; but, we have a prophetic ministry to complete and miles to travel before we sleep.

We should propose the following agenda to the new dispensation of the diocese:

1. The bishop should work within the framework of the constitution and a democratic polity. It is a mistake to understand authority as “power to rule over”, rather it is a privilege to serve and care for the sheep. It is sad that the bishop strays from the path of love and service shown by Jesus Christ, “the great shepherd of the sheep”. He should be at all cost restrained from interfering in financial and property matters. The bishop should not be allowed to undermine the democratic institutions of the diocesan structure.

2. Unfortunately, both in the CSI constitution and the constitution of our diocese, there is a centralization of power in the hands of the bishop in the diocese and the clergy in the pastorate. This must be carefully reviewed. However, it must be realized that these offices in the church derive their power from the people and all power comes from God; we are only its stewards. Any exercise of it for self-aggrandizement or destroying the other, rather than for ennobling and building up, is unchristian and must be controlled. The justice delivery mechanism in the diocese must be made effective, so that ordinary people in the pew, rather than the ecclesiastical leadership, can be at the center of the church’s life.

3. This is by no means to undermine the status and dignity of the specialized ministries in the church, particularly the ordained ministry. We do not want the role of the presbyters to be demeaned to that of a servant of the bishop. Their dignity and honor comes from their moral stature and we would like to see them uphold it and provide the kind of moral leadership we badly need in our church and society. In a situation where the bishop arbitrarily exercises his power to punish and transfer pastors at his whims and fancies, we cannot expect any clergy to be upright. It is important that there should be clearly laid out norms that are transparent and objective for the transfer of the clergy. In deciding the transfer, the pastoral board should exercise these norms in such a manner that the interests of the Clergy, the congregation and the diocese are considered. In the absence of such norms, there will be much sycophancy around the bishop and very little of earnest work to “tend the flock” under their care. New dignity, courage and fervor must be restored to the clergy.

4. We should not allow the properties bequeathed to us by our ancestors and the missionaries to be alienated either as outright sale or long term lease deed. They are also not to be used for any so called developmental purposes, but to serve the evangelistic cause for which they have been given to us. Development has become a misnomer for misappropriation of valuable assets and resources of the church. The properties of the CSITA belong to each and every member of the CSI. It is only in consultation with the local parish and only after seeking their consensus that the properties under their care can be sold or leased out. The advice of the property committee and the executive committee must also be sought. The trust laws should be strictly followed in effecting such land transactions.

5. The Church should earnestly search for and identify new areas of need to which we can respond in the compassion of Christ. The existing missions should be reviewed and revitalized, instead of carrying them forward as an adornment. Our evangelists must be well utilized and well paid.

6. The events of the past one year have brought into sharp focus questions regarding the rights and role of the congregation. Don’t they have a right to be consulted when their property is sold or leased out? Don’t they have a right to be consulted when their pastor is transferred or a new pastor is appointed? Are they only there to support the cultic ministries which are so guardedly preserved as the prerogative of the Clergy and remain in subservience to the ‘ecclesiastical authorities’? Who are they in terms of the mission of the church? After all who is the church? Is the church the hierarchy, the bishops and the clergy and other ecclesiastical structures and paraphernalia? Bishop Kuruvilla treated the congregations and their demands with much disdain and never acknowledged their central role in the ministry of the church. The ecumenical affirmation about the local worshipping community as the very place where the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church exists in its fullness must be affirmed and promoted to further the mission of Christ in the world. They are the vanguard in mission.

We are open to receiving more suggestions from all quarters. When we look back, we realize that God’s grace and guidance has been enormous. That does not mean that we did not have times of trials and difficulties. We are working with our own meager resources and the enormous good will from our friends. Most of them, without looking for fame or profit, have been unstinting in their support to us. We cannot at this time forget the labor of many noble souls, who were so convinced of the rightness of this cause that they were prepared to work day and night without seeking any reward. The bishop put many of them through extreme suffering. But they persisted. Two pastorates and its members in Elamkulam and Kallamassery are holding the fort despite all attempts by the bishop to cow them down by denying them sacraments and other ministries.

We do not underestimate the role played by many of the retired bishops, the moderator of the CSI, the Synod officers, the Synod appointed administrators, a large section of the clergy retired as well as in service, who acted with much understanding, forbearance, and determination in seeing us through this crisis period and making sure that democratic governance is restored to the diocese. The recalcitrance of Bishop Kuruvilla is unmatched and would wear out anybody with normal human sensibilities. We pray that the new officers, the administration and the executive be given the grace to face the daunting tasks ahead.

Victory should not make us arrogant or slothful. Our task only begins. The Laity Fellowship has been formed in response to the call of God to remind us of our Christian calling and election. It does not stop with a transfer of the governance of the church; it must continue to fulfill its prophetic role under all circumstances keeping God’s mission to the world in focus.

T J John,
Secretary, CSI North Kerala Laity Fellowship.

The Synod and the Bishop Playing Hide and Seek (Malayalam)

Indian Campaign Against Church Corruption

A group of concerned church leaders and activists in southern India has launched a campaign to combat "the deep-rooted cancer of corruption" within churches.



The campaign has been established following the murder of a bishop, the imprisonment of another, and a rise in concern among church members that corruption is rife in church hierarchies, particularly in denominations which receive funding from abroad.



A seven-member task group of officials from church-related organizations "to fight corruption and violence within the church" has been set up following a meeting by more than 20 church leaders on December 9 at the Inter-Church Service Association (ICSA) in Chennai, capital of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu.



"We are now planning to convene a larger meeting with as many church leaders as possible to make the movement against corruption [in churches] effective," Moses P. Manohar, ICSA executive director and co-ordinator of the anti-corruption campaign, told ENI.



The meeting on was chaired by K. Rajaratnam, a prominent Lutheran leader and former president of the National Council of Churches in India, who is also director of the Gurukul Lutheran Theological College in Chennai.



He told ENI: "Corruption is rampant among church leaders. The mission of the church is not on the agenda of many church leaders. Their real agenda is power and money." Rajaratnam is also the executive secretary of the United Evangelical Lutheran Church of India (UELCI), a forum of 11 Indian Lutheran churches.



Shortly after the meeting, the church leaders issued a statement saying the campaign had been prompted by the recent "killing of a head of a church on property-related issues and the award of two months' imprisonment by the judiciary to another bishop."



Bishop G. Emmanuel, president of the 800 000-member Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church (AELC), was stabbed to death last July in the AELC complex, allegedly because of a dispute over the lease of AELC property.



Three months later, Bishop M. I. Kesari, of the Church of South India (CSI) diocese of Kannyakumari, in India's southern tip, was sentenced to two months' imprisonment for corruption and contempt of court. Bishop Kesari was jailed for defying a court order not to declare the outcome of a church election allegedly rigged by the bishop's faction. The bishop has appealed against the sentence, and the prison sentence has been put on hold.



The church leaders' statement declared that "a movement must be initiated to bring rethinking and revival in the church. The movement is not just aimed at a few individuals, but is meant for creating a new ethos where people should be ashamed of becoming suddenly rich and the people in general must be prepared not to be tolerant of corruption.



"The status of the church looks like a sucked-out orange and a salt which lost its saltiness," said the statement, which added that "church journals have shrunk to the level of carrying only the obituaries and bishops' tour details" instead of discussing real church concerns.



The meeting identified the misuse of foreign funding, along with indifference, tolerance of corruption, and the granting of absolute power to church heads as the main factors "that breed corruption" in the churches.



As well as the task force, committees to be known as "Nathan's Clubs" - named after the Old Testament prophet Nathan - will be established at various levels in Christian communities "for prophetic action of challenging corruption and abuse of power."



"If we speak of corruption to the people, they will tell us to go and advise the bishops first. Just as Nathan went to David in the name of the Lord, speaking the truth in love, we need to do the same," CSI pastor T. Dayanandan Francis told ENI, referring to the second book of Samuel in the Old Testament.



Pastor Francis, who is general secretary of the Christian Literature Society in Chennai, said that "we [Christians] are very fed up with church leadership. The cleansing should start at the top [with those] who call themselves shepherds."



According to Rajaratnam, even traditional churches like the Orthodox Church, based in the southern Indian state of Kerala, suffer from factionalism promoted by church leaders who have vested interests.



"As for the new [Protestant] churches, the situation is much worse," he told ENI. "Church leaders are more interested in material concerns than spiritual matters."



Esther Kathiroli, executive secretary of the Tamil Nadu Christian Council and one of the members of the new task force, said in an interview that "many church leaders start well, but gradually get involved more in money matters than spiritual matters."



Kathiroli said that church leaders "should act like David who repented when the prophet Nathan pointed out his sins." Corruption in the churches was a "vicious problem," with some pastors failing to take their mission seriously. "Consequently, disappointed congregation members join new churches mushrooming around these days," she said.



While corruption was a problem "in almost all churches," Moses Manohar said that churches "directly connected to overseas churches are more prone to corruption" because of their access to foreign funds.



He added that the swift amassing of wealth, including big houses and other properties, by church leaders was "a scandal to ordinary faithful."



"Widespread corruption has made churches also embroiled in too many court cases," he said, adding that "judges are virtually ruling our churches."



Rajaratnam told ENI that leaders of the National Council of Churches in India, the CSI, and officials of theological colleges had written to him welcoming the campaign against corruption.



However, Rajaratnam said that the task ahead was a "difficult one," and that most of those supporting the campaign were retired church leaders. "The challenge before us is to bring active church leaders into the campaign for accountability and merit in church decisions and administration. But, the question is how many would be willing to surrender power to public scrutiny?" Rajaratnam said.



From Christianity Today Magazine (www.christianitytoday.com)

Corruption charges laid against the Bishop in North Kerala: The Church of England Newspaper, Jan 28, 2011 p 8.

The Church of South India (CSI)’s synod has taken charge of the administration of the Diocese of North Kerala after its Bishop, the Rt. Rev. K P Kuruvilla failed to convene the diocesan council.



North Kerala has been the scene of heated debates between its bishop and lay leaders.  In a letter to the moderator of the CSI dated Jan 21, the CSI North Kerala Diocesan Laity Fellowship accused the bishop of pocketing school funds. They alleged that since June 2010 the bishop had collected approximately Rs. 85 million rupees (£1.2 million) “through the appointment of thirty two teachers in four of the newly sanctioned higher secondary schools” in the diocese.



At a meeting of the diocesan executive committee held on Oct 20, questions about the disposition of the funds were raise.  The diocesan treasurer “admitted to have received only Rs. 15 million (£207,000). When asked about rest of the amount, bishop responded that the amount received cannot be divulged and the executive committee members [would] have to just trust him on this matter,” the complaint said.



A new diocesan council that included critics of the bishop was elected at the end of October, but the bishop did not convene the council.  Critics have charged the bishop with seeking to derail the new council so as to avoid an inquiry into diocesan finances.



Under the CSI’s constitution, if a diocesan council is not convened within 90 days of its election, its administrative responsibilities pass to the synod. On Jan 24 the synod appointed an interim council that included Bishop Kuruvilla and directed that a new council be elected and installed by May.



A number of CSI dioceses have witnessed conflicts between their bishop and clergy and lay groups. In May 2010 six clergy and a lay member of the Diocese of Rayalaseema staged a protest before the diocesan offices, calling for the ouster of Bishop K.B. Yesuvaraprasad.



A lay member of the diocese, Dr. Y.S. Thomas Reddy, had distributed tracts accusing the bishop of misusing diocesan funds and called for a protest at his residence on May 25. Bishop Yesuvaraprasad requested police protection, and when the protesters arrived they were arrested for a breach of the peace when they did not disperse.



Allegations of misconduct have also been leveled against the moderator of the CSI, while a criminal investigation is underway into the finances of the Bishop in Coimbatore, the Rt. Rev. Manickam Dorai. Last year the CSI synod dissolved the diocesan council and suspended Bishop Dorai pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings.



Two other CSI dioceses are currently under the administrative oversight of the CSI synod. In the Diocese of Madhya Kerala the Bishop in East Kerala has been given temporary charge of the diocese following the retirement of the Rt. Rev. Thomas Samuel on Jan 24. In November the Diocesan Council nominated the Rev. Thomas Oommen and Dr. Oommen George to stand for election at the Jan 18 meeting of the diocesan synod. However, a dispute over the balloting has postponed the election pending a review by the provincial ecclesiastical court.



On Dec 25 the former moderator of the CSI, Bishop John Gladstone retired as Bishop in South Kerala. The Synod has appointed the Bishop in Kanyakumair to oversee the diocese until a new bishop is appointed.



Courtesy - http://geoconger.wordpress.com/

A Clarification from CSI North Kerala Diocese Officers

Click on the image for more clarity

Click on the image for more clarity

Bishop's Efforts to Sabotage the Synod Appointed Committee Foiled

It would have been better for Bishop Kuruvilla to step down like how Mubarak and Ben Ali did in Egypt and Tunisia. But no. Possessed by an unregulated appetite for more money and power, the bishop continues to conspire, throw tantrums, hurl abuses, and remain overprotective of his chair. The thought that he has lost all moral legitimacy to continue as the bishop of North Kerala Diocese has still not dawned in his mind and he remains hell-bent on subverting all democratic processes to have his way.

On the morning of 22 February 2011 at Shantigiri Ashram, near Aluva, Bishop Kuruvilla and a coterie of his loyal followers, which included Rev. Daniel George, Rev. Kurien Peter, Rev. N. K. Prasad, Rev. P. G. Thompson, Rev. Abraham Kuruvilla, Rev. Prince, Rev. Jacob Daniel, Mr. Jayan Samuel and Mrs. Soumini Jayan came to meet Rt. Rev. Vasantkumar, the Moderator of Church of South India. Overwhelmed by the number of visitors who had arrived at his room uninvited, the moderator ushered everyone out, since whatever has to be discussed would be between him and Bishop Kuruvilla and no one else.

Subsequently, the moderator reprimanded the bishop for all the trouble he had caused in the diocese and gave him a letter reconstituting the Synod appointed committee by removing two members from the existing committee and appointing three members loyal to the bishop. The moderator made it clear that he was doing this favour under the condition that all cases filed by the bishop would be withdrawn; no vindictive action would be taken against any member or clergy in the diocese; the finances of the diocese would be managed by P. C. John, a member of the synod appointed committee and a former IAS officer; and the bishop would not interfere in the financial matters of the diocese. Considering the moderator had done him a favour by appointing three of his loyalists into the synod appointed committee, the bishop should have been quite pleased. But, he was not. He stormed out of the moderator's room, using abusive language against the latter and calling him a thief bigger than Earnest Edapally. So much for his defence of 'ecclesiastical authority'.

Later that day, representatives of CSI North Kerala Laity Fellowship met with the moderator and conveyed their anguish over rendering relief to a bishop, who by his subversion of democratic processes brought about this impasse, when those aggrieved were the faithful members of the church who had been denied their democratic rights, and who now had no one to address their grievance to. The moderator, after giving a patient hearing, explained that it was the present circumstances that compelled him to take such a decision. The accounts of the synod and the various dioceses are under the investigation of Income Tax authorities, and the possibility of CSITA losing its Income Tax exemption is imminent. Under such circumstances, he preferred not to have any instability in the administration of the diocese as a result of prolonged litigations. He assured the representatives of the laity fellowship that this was only a temporary arrangement, for a period of three months within which, a new diocesan council and executive would be elected; the elections would be fair and Bishop Kuruvilla would not be allowed to interfere with it; in case the synod appointed committee failed to conduct elections within the stipulated time, he reserves the right to reconstitute a new committee and hold the elections; and finally, Bishop Kuruvilla would not be allowed to touch the diocesan money and all financial matters will be managed by a trustworthy member of the synod appointed committee, namely P. C. John. The moderator then sought the cooperation of the laity for the smooth administration of the diocese till 31st May 2011.

However, some of the later developments have raised certain serious questions about the legality and viability of the newly reconstituted synod appointed committee. Firstly, on 13 January 2011, through a proxy, Bishop Kuruvilla had acquired a court order from Hon. Munsiff Court, Kalpetta, restraining the original synod appointed committee from taking charge. On 16 February 2011, this court order was vacated. But, this ruling was kept in abeyance, as per the request of the plaintiff (bishop's proxy), until an appeal could be filed in an higher court. However, till today, bishop's proxy has neither acquired a certified copy of the court order nor gone for an appeal. In essence, the court order restraining the synod appointed committee from taking charge continues to stand as it is. This being the reality, the claim made by the bishop to the media that the newly reconstituted synod appointed committee has taken charge is nothing but a misrepresentation of facts.

Secondly, neither the synod nor the bishop has informed the original synod appointed committee, constituted on 13 January 2011 and took charge following the vacation of the interim injunction restraining them from doing so, of the formation of a new committee that would replace it. As far as the original committee is concerned, it continues to be an active and functional committee that cannot be reconstituted without sufficient reason and without following the appropriate procedures and protocols. It is learned that members of the original committee have now approached the court of law, questioning the arbitrary nature in which the existing committee was dissolved and a new committee was formed. Meanwhile, P. C. John, who had been entrusted with the financial responsibilities of the diocese and a member of the original and the new committees, has written a letter to the moderator expressing his unwillingness to work as treasurer in a committee with bishop as its chairman.

The final development that has sealed the fate of the newly formed synod appointed committee is the court order that came from the Ottapalam Sub-court on 1 March 2011. Following the formation of the new committee, Col. James Hunt, one of the members of the original committee and who ceases to be in the new committee, filed a case for declaring the original committee as the sole committee in charge and restraining the moderator and the bishop from handing over charges to any other committee. In response to this case, the Ottapalam Sub-court issued a court order restraining the newly formed committee from managing the finances of the diocese until the diocesan council elections are held and a democratically elected body is in place.

Given these developments, it has become clear that the move to hand over charges to a newly reconstituted committee, which was one of the last resorts of the bishop, has become null and void. Although it would be wishful thinking, at least now, good sense should prevail and the bishop should submit his resignation. If not, the restless people may soon storm the palatial bungalow he has just constructed and drive him out. The patience of the faithful believers have been tested and they are now ready to launch a people's movement to save the diocese.

Penitence has to be Matched by Corresponding Action.

Dear the Most Rev. Vasanthakumar,

Your action of appointing an interim administration as per 8 (12) of the CSI constitution is widely acclaimed throughout the diocese and is deeply appreciated by the CSI North Kerala Laity Fellowship, which is nothing but a constitutional obligation.

Bishop Kuruvilla, using proxies, filed two suits challenging the appointment of the synod administration and seeking interim injunctions, one in Ottappalam and the other in Kalpetta. By the timely intervention of some believers, the attempt to get an injunction from Ottappalam was foiled. But he managed to get an injunction from the Munsiff Court, Kalpetta. The argument on that case is completed and its final verdict is awaited on February 9, 2011. It is important that you pursue as to how the letter from your office, addressed to the Bishop and marked “confidential”, have reached the hands of the litigants and the lawyers in Ottappalam and Kalpetta.

In the meanwhile, the Bishop called a ‘fake’ meeting of the executive Committee and appointed a few of them as office bearers and attempted to operate the diocesan accounts in various banks. By the timely action of Rev. B. N. Fen and Mr. P. I. John and other believers that attempt was also foiled.

Subsequently, on January 29, 2011 the bishop sent out a notice calling for a meeting of the defunct Executive Committee on February 14, 2011 to fill the vacancies of the office bearers –the Treasurer, Lay Secretary and Clergy Secretary. It was after initiating such an action in defiance of the Synod leadership that he came to meet you in Bangalore on February 1. This is very typical of the bishop and his strategy and character.

Now we learn that Bishop Kuruvilla has sent you a letter of penitence and has requested you to reconstitute the Synod administration bringing false allegations against some of the members of the Synod appointed administration. The entire church has full confidence in their uprightness. We also would like to bring to your attention the fact that Col. James Hunt is a member of St. Mary's Church, Fort St. George, Chennai. He hails from a noble Christian Family with Basel Mission tradition and is well accepted in the community and belog to Vadakara, a suburb of Calicut.

We do not have to enlighten you on the fact that any reconstitution will be at the cost of your credibility and reputation. We also do not believe that his words of penitence will be matched by corresponding action. It can only considered as a strategic move to safe guard his vested interests once again. Otherwise, why should a bishop fear an interim administration which was brought into existence out of constitutional necessity?

While we understand the compulsions of you as moderator to be ‘pastoral’ in your relationship to the Bishop, we would like to remind you that due consideration may be given to the impact this will have on the larger church and on the large majority of clergy and laity who suffer under a high handed, dictatorial, vindictive and corrupt leadership. Several instances of corruption and especially the one related to starting Higher Secondary Schools, involving 8.5 Crore, have been brought to your attention.

In the absence of anybody in the diocese to represent and communicate the concerns and actions of the Synod, which the bishop should have been doing, we undertake that task within our limitations of resources and authority. Even in legal matters, we are forced to intervene in the larger interest of the church, which, by the way, coin sides with that of the Synod. It is a shame that even when a bishop is present in a diocese, the Synod is put in a position to fend for itself.

Kindly find enclosed/attached with this letter a copy of the email send out by a believer who listened to the Bishop’s sermon at the St. Mary’s Church, Calicut on Sunday, February 6, 2011 during a confirmation service, which reflects the feelings of the length and breadth of the church toward the Rt. Rev. Dr. K. P. Kuruvilla.

We hope that you will take these facts into heart and act pastorally to the flock that look up to you for the badly needed solace. We pray that God will provide you the necessary wisdom and courage to act firmly to resolve this impasse. We assure you of our prayer and support.

With grateful regards,

Yours sincerely

T J John

Secretary,

CSI North Kerala Laity Fellowship

Officiating Administration Assumes Charge.

We are witnessing a repeat of the Munnar Court intervention in the unfolding drama related to the taking charge of the diocesan administration by the synod appointed committee. At the time, the bishop through his proxy got an injunction from the Munsiff Court, Munnar and on its backing, delayed constituting the new diocesan council. But that turned out to be his nemesis. In this case, Mr. Aaron James, a member of the synod and diocesan executive committees, Mr. Manoj Kumar from Thallap, and Mr. Kanakaraj from Vaniayamkulam sought an interim ex-parte injunction from the Sub-court, Ottapalam restraining the synod appointed administration from taking charge on 24 January 2011. The CSI North Kerala Diocesan Laity Fellowship, becoming aware of this move, impleaded in this case and argued against giving such an injunction and thus, foiled their attempt. However, on the same day, Mr. Vinod Mathew, moved the Hon. Munsiff Court, Kalpetta with the bishop, the general secretary of the CSI and the the moderator as defendants, and obtained an injunction against the officiating administration from taking charge.

Meanwhile, Rt. Rev. John Sadananda, the bishop of South Karnataka Diocese, representing the moderator and the synod, rushed to Shoranur yesterday, 23 January 2011, with the objective of bringing some sense to Bishop Kuruvilla. But, this mission was a failure and Bishop Sadananda returned to Mangalore this morning disappointed. He shall be reporting his concerns to the moderator.

Despite all the efforts of the synod to ensure a smooth transition, today, 24 January 2011, armed with the injunction obtained from the Hon. Munsiff Court, Kalpetta, and with the assistance of a bunch of goondas - Rev. P. T. George, an ever-obedient clergy known for vandalizing the historical heritage of St. Mary’s Church, Calicut; Rev. Trevor Jyothish, the infamous architect of Puthiyara disaster; Mr. Jayan Samuel, husband of Mrs. Soumini Jayan; Mr. Earnest Edapally, bishop’s confidant and a suspended government servant on charges of corruption; and Mr. Sunshine, a peon in one of the BEM schools and a self-acclaimed CPI(M) party worker – blocked the officiating administration and attempted to physically assault them. Criminal cases have been filed against them.

Meanwhile, the old administration - Rev. B.N Fenn, the treasurer; Rev. Jacob John, the clergy secretary; and Mr. M. N. George, the lay secretary, has obliged to abide by the CSI constitution and the synod directive, and hand over the administration to the synod appointed officiating administration and thus avoid an impasse.

Later in the day, it was learned from reliable sources close to the synod that bishop is going to be suspended. It is also learnt that Rev. P. T. George and the bishop are absconding, and their whereabouts are not known. We feel that this is being done to evade the serving of any suspension order. This is most unfortunate and difficult to fathom.

As SAVE CSI had already pointed out in an earlier post, it is strange that a normal administrative action in the event of a diocesan council not meeting within three months from the term of its expiry as stipulated in the CSI Constitution should invite such wrath from the bishop and a miniscule section of the church with other vested interests. Shouldn’t the bishop extend the same ‘ecclesiastical obedience’ that he has been demanding from his clergy and laity to the synod? What moral authority does he have to continue as bishop of a diocese?

The bishop has become like Saul, who was anointed as the king of Israel and yet, because of his own arrogance, became possessed by the evil spirit and went insane. He is seething with anger and spouts venom at all those pious church members who had wished well for him and wanted to uphold the witness of the church. There is something terribly wrong and the synod, in the coming days, has to address these concerns and save the witness of the church, which has been mauled because of the rash actions of the bishop and his coterie in the recent past. It has become rather clear that there is something he is afraid of and wants to hide.

Bishop Kuruvilla is Inviting Suspension

Dear Most Rev Vasanthakumar,

This is in reference to my earlier letters dated 20-11-2010, 18-12-2010, and 13-01-2011.

Bishop K P Kuruvilla

We are extremely grateful to you for the timely intervention, by which a constitutional breakdown has been avoided in the diocese. Sadly, Bishop Kuruvilla continues to remain belligerent. Bishop and his coterie are already making efforts, both in Chennai and Ernakulam, to get an ex-parte injunction against the officiating committee from taking charge. Yesterday, 19 January 2011, he called a few presbyters, district council members and church workers to the diocesan office at Shoranur. It is learned that he tried to compel them to sign on blank papers under the pretext of sending a memorandum to the synod. Fortunately, most of them refused to sign, but only to be threatened by the bishop with dire consequences. We have also learned that he is organizing a few people to prevent the members of the officiating committee from entering the diocesan office and taking charge on 25 January 2011.

We feel the cause of this panic on the part of the bishop is nothing more than his fear of being exposed further of his nefarious financial deals. Since June 2010, Bishop Kuruvilla has collected around 8.5 crores through the appointment of thirty two teachers in four of the newly sanctioned higher secondary schools. This is excluding the huge sums of money that has been collected for appointments in Malabar Christian College and other aided schools. This is a fact that is known to everyone in the diocese and has been covered well in the local media. In the executive committee that met on 20 October 2010, questions were raised regarding this and the treasurer admitted to have received only Rs. 1.5 crores. When asked about rest of the amount, bishop responded that the amount received cannot be divulged and the executive committee members have to just trust him on this matter. In the light of the present change in administration, the amount collected by the bishop would have to be naturally handed over to the administration with a detailed account informing from whom the money has been received.

The more pertinent question is in whose possession is this huge sum of money. Kindly note that since the government and its investigative agencies are already aware of this financial misappropriation, the appointments will never get approved. This is all the more so considering the money was collected against vacancies which were not approved in the first instance and for which no appropriate rank list has been prepared. It is learnt that the bishop has promised the candidates that he would return their money back in the event of their vacancies not being approved. If that is so, the liability of that will be on the diocese. Therefore, it is important that a detailed enquiry be conducted on this matter at the earliest. If the accurate figures of money collected is not ascertained and if that money is not recovered from the bishop and his associates, then the diocese may face a huge liability coming close to Rs. 10 crores. Attached are some of the press reports from the local dailies on the matter.

Now I have learnt, from reliable sources close to Bishop K P Kuruvilla that he is trying desperately to get suspended so that he can walk away without accounting and handing over physically this money.



Thanking you.

Yours faithfully,

T J John

CSI North Kerala Laity Fellowship

click on the image to Zoom

click on the image to Zoom

click on the image to Zoom

The Tragicomedy of an Erred Bishop

Bishop K P Kuruvilla

One does not know whether to laugh or cry at the turn of events in the North Kerala Diocese. The diocese has a bishop who has no qualms subverting democratic processes through blatant lies and subterfuges, and making a joke of himself. Here we try to unravel the mystery of that bishop in not constituting the diocesan council after the election held on 14 July 2010, which had forced the Synod to appoint an officiating committee with effect from 25 January 2011.

Subsequent to the election, as early as the end of July, pastorate committees in almost all parishes in the North Kerala Diocese were confirmed and by 8 August 2010, they were all installed. The Vicars, while announcing the confirmation of the newly elected pastorate committees, informed the congregations that the diocesan council members cannot be confirmed due to some complaints about the election and a court injunction. But the reality was that there was no court injunction for about 46 days from the date of election, till 30 August 2010, when one Mr. Bhagyaraj filed a case in the Devikulam Munsiff court and got an ex-parte injunction restraining the bishop from “declaring the final result of the election conducted to the Diocesan Council… till the disposal of the appeal filed before the respondent” (the bishop). What had prevented the bishop from confirming and declaring the election results to the diocesan council during this long period of 46 days from the date of election? Was he not perpetuating a lie through the Vicars, the established systems of communication in the diocese?

It is clear from the injunction application of Mr. Bhagyaraj, the complainant, that he had filed an election petition to the bishop on the same day of the election, 14 July 2010, under the provision 89c of the North Kerala Diocesan Constitution. The court was forced to intervene with an injunction owing to the fact that the bishop failed to act on this appeal and did not care to take any measure to settle the dispute as late as 30 August 2010. While that was the cause for the injunction, despite the fact that the injunction has validity only till the appeal is settled by the bishop, he did not care to settle the dispute nor did he file a counter affidavit to defend himself in the court of law. This amply proves that the bishop colluded with Mr. Bhagyaraj to subvert the formation of the new diocesan council and that Mr. Bhagyaraj was acting on behalf of the bishop. This is nothing but gross neglect of his responsibility as a bishop, cheating and misleading the flocks and subverting the democratic process laid down in the constitution.

Grieved by this inaction of the bishop, Mrs. Latha John, the diocesan council member from the Holy Trinity Church, Aluva, impleaded in this case and as per her appeal, the court modified the order on November 3rd limiting the jurisdiction of the order only to Munnar pastorate. If the bishop had initiated steps to convene the diocesan council immediately after this court order, the necessity for an officiating administration would not have been necessary. The bishop again chose the path of denial and falsification of facts, unbecoming of his noble office.

To make the facts more clear, the term of the existing administration expired on 24 October 2010. As per the CSI constitution chapter 8-12, the present administration can continue in office only for another three months, which expires on 24 January 2011. Since the bishop cannot hold the diocesan council before 24 January and elect a new administration, it is incumbent upon the CSI synod to appoint an officiating administration from that date. The bishop, in his worldly wisdom, did not care to report the fact of the expiry of the date of the present administration to the synod as required by the constitution. The constitution states: “In case the new Council cannot be convened within 3 months from the expiry of the term of the old council, the Bishop/officers shall report the matter to the Synod which shall take steps for the proper administration of the diocese.” The synod came to know of the date of the expiry of the old diocesan council from the CSI North Kerala Laity Fellowship and the synod had to confront the bishop with these facts. This was a serious dereliction of duty on the part of the bishop.

It is learnt from reliable sources that the bishop is now explaining his present initiative to call the diocesan council as being caused by the withdrawal of the case in the Devikulam Munsiff Court. The fact of the matter is that the case has not been withdrawn and it cannot be withdrawn without intimating Mrs. Latha John, the 6th respondent in the case. The bishop is touting one lie after another and getting himself into a quagmire from which he would now find it difficult to escape. Can a bishop be more discredited than this? It is further learned that he would move the court against the synod to get an ex-parte injunction against the officiating administration from taking charge on 25 January 2011. The unfolding drama will be very tragic for the church, but would be something that could be also watched with much comic relief.