What do they mean by "financial restitution"? Are they saying that the pope should send the diocese a check for $10 million?
This story gets all the different Pillar articles combined into one: financial scandal, liturgy, bishops being removed, synodality. Why did the average person out of those 50,000 show up? If it were really about the liturgy, it would not just be a matter of one diocese.
What do they mean by "financial restitution"? Are they saying that the pope should send the diocese a check for $10 million?
This story gets all the different Pillar articles combined into one: financial scandal, liturgy, bishops being removed, synodality. Why did the average person out of those 50,000 show up? If it were really about the liturgy, it would not just be a matter of one diocese.
In 2017-18, Vatican had it investigated by KPMG and another Syro-Malabar bishop, Mar Jacob Manathodath, and found grave issues. Two changes were made as a result.
1. Cardinal Mar George Alencherry, major archbishop of Ernakulam, was kept away from administrative duties of his archdiocese, but could retain the title. Mar Antony Kariyil was made in charge of the activities of archdiocese.
2. Vatican asked Syro-Malabar Cardinal and synod to make a plan for restitution.
Mar Antony Kariyil tried to solve both issues.
In between, Cardinal George Alencherry and Synod resuscitated the dormant liturgical controversy. The controversy has its own long history, much centered on reviving ancient traditions v/s adopting Second Vatican's reforms. Ernakulam was the center of Second Vatican reforms in the Syro Malabar Church, and led other dioceses. Beginning 1985, few dioceses departed from that path and started reviving the liturgy and theology of Nestorius and other Eastern Fathers. Ernakulam resisted such attempts and has always been wary of any attempt to change their style. In 1999, when a compromise formula was promulgated, most priests of Syro Malabar resisted the rubrics related to priest's orientation. Individual bishops gave dispensations in their diocese to keep the unity of church.
This issue came back in 2019, after 2 decades. Synod asked to revoke the prior dispensations. The call for liturgical uniformity met with strong resistance in most dioceses. Nevertheless, bishops revoked their dispensations. But all eyes fell on Ernakulam. As the See of Syro-Malabar, it became the epicenter of liturgical debate once again.
This was a shock to Mar Antony Kariyil, who, after meeting and seeking the advice from Pope Francis, continued with the dispensation, on November 2021.
Many priests suspect the liturgy issue as an attempt to derail the issue of financial scandal.
Mar Antony Kariyil filed petitions with Rome for an inquiry into the financial matters, as well as for solving the liturgical issue by adopting the position of keeping substantial unity while permitting diversity in certain rubrics. Mar Kariyil also wished to correct a factual error in the 2021 letter of Pope Francis where the Pope urged for uniformity. This was not liked by the Cardinal.
Eventually, those events triggered the removal of Mar Kariyil on the pretext of being disobedient to Pope.
The priests and lay of Ernakulam are now asking to hear them out, and their concerns. Hence the call for a listening church and synodality. The protesters carried the flags of Vatican and even the picture of Pope Francis alongside Mar Antony Kariyil, to show that they are in support of the call of Pope Francis for greater synodality and participation.
The people including priests and religious were here primarily because they felt Mar Antony Kariyil was being denied justice. Restitution, liturgy are other factors.
The sale of real estate properties of the archdiocese has reportedly caused a loss for the archdiocese. It is said that prime land was sold off without due process and evading some tax rules. Cardinal George Alencherry had full powers of archbishop when those deals were made. The scandal erupted into public (back in 2017) when news channels uncovered the documents in the deal, which had the Cardinal's signature.
The onus of restitution fell on the Cardinal and bishops synod, to make up the loss suffered by archdiocese. Mar Kariyil became the liaison between archdiocese and synod.
Per Mar Kariyil's recent letter, there was a plan to recompensate the archdiocese from the loss it incurred. I do not know the contents of that plan, but it was a plan within the Syro Malabar. That was rejected by the synod and the rejection was supported by the Oriental Congregation. The restitution plan was stalled as a result.
I wish I could give more information, but this is all I know.
I am grateful for you sharing the information you know!
So the money is to go to the Archdiocese. I wonder where the money is supposed to come from. Does the Cardinal have $10 million dollars personally? Or is the money supposed to come from the other dioceses in India or the Indian Government? It is interesting that there is a plan. But the plan was rejected, so perhaps there is no one who actually has the money to pay.
Ernakulam already has a large flow of money through her institutions, and it will not be justice to get money from other dioceses with much lower budgets.
The problem is at dead end because the Cardinal has little in personal wealth, and attempting a fund raising will only backfire at this stage. As far as I know, the restitution demand is to correct the wrong done. I don't think the diocese is financially strained because of the loss.
There are speculations that others may have possibly benefitted from the deal, the Cardinal being a scapegoat. The Cardinal was not willing to disclose more details. The reports from the investigation of Vatican is not available to public.
What do they mean by "financial restitution"? Are they saying that the pope should send the diocese a check for $10 million?
This story gets all the different Pillar articles combined into one: financial scandal, liturgy, bishops being removed, synodality. Why did the average person out of those 50,000 show up? If it were really about the liturgy, it would not just be a matter of one diocese.
Financial scandal is the trigger.
In 2017-18, Vatican had it investigated by KPMG and another Syro-Malabar bishop, Mar Jacob Manathodath, and found grave issues. Two changes were made as a result.
1. Cardinal Mar George Alencherry, major archbishop of Ernakulam, was kept away from administrative duties of his archdiocese, but could retain the title. Mar Antony Kariyil was made in charge of the activities of archdiocese.
2. Vatican asked Syro-Malabar Cardinal and synod to make a plan for restitution.
Mar Antony Kariyil tried to solve both issues.
In between, Cardinal George Alencherry and Synod resuscitated the dormant liturgical controversy. The controversy has its own long history, much centered on reviving ancient traditions v/s adopting Second Vatican's reforms. Ernakulam was the center of Second Vatican reforms in the Syro Malabar Church, and led other dioceses. Beginning 1985, few dioceses departed from that path and started reviving the liturgy and theology of Nestorius and other Eastern Fathers. Ernakulam resisted such attempts and has always been wary of any attempt to change their style. In 1999, when a compromise formula was promulgated, most priests of Syro Malabar resisted the rubrics related to priest's orientation. Individual bishops gave dispensations in their diocese to keep the unity of church.
This issue came back in 2019, after 2 decades. Synod asked to revoke the prior dispensations. The call for liturgical uniformity met with strong resistance in most dioceses. Nevertheless, bishops revoked their dispensations. But all eyes fell on Ernakulam. As the See of Syro-Malabar, it became the epicenter of liturgical debate once again.
This was a shock to Mar Antony Kariyil, who, after meeting and seeking the advice from Pope Francis, continued with the dispensation, on November 2021.
Many priests suspect the liturgy issue as an attempt to derail the issue of financial scandal.
Mar Antony Kariyil filed petitions with Rome for an inquiry into the financial matters, as well as for solving the liturgical issue by adopting the position of keeping substantial unity while permitting diversity in certain rubrics. Mar Kariyil also wished to correct a factual error in the 2021 letter of Pope Francis where the Pope urged for uniformity. This was not liked by the Cardinal.
Eventually, those events triggered the removal of Mar Kariyil on the pretext of being disobedient to Pope.
The priests and lay of Ernakulam are now asking to hear them out, and their concerns. Hence the call for a listening church and synodality. The protesters carried the flags of Vatican and even the picture of Pope Francis alongside Mar Antony Kariyil, to show that they are in support of the call of Pope Francis for greater synodality and participation.
The people including priests and religious were here primarily because they felt Mar Antony Kariyil was being denied justice. Restitution, liturgy are other factors.
So what is meant by restitution? The who would pay what to whom?
The sale of real estate properties of the archdiocese has reportedly caused a loss for the archdiocese. It is said that prime land was sold off without due process and evading some tax rules. Cardinal George Alencherry had full powers of archbishop when those deals were made. The scandal erupted into public (back in 2017) when news channels uncovered the documents in the deal, which had the Cardinal's signature.
The onus of restitution fell on the Cardinal and bishops synod, to make up the loss suffered by archdiocese. Mar Kariyil became the liaison between archdiocese and synod.
Per Mar Kariyil's recent letter, there was a plan to recompensate the archdiocese from the loss it incurred. I do not know the contents of that plan, but it was a plan within the Syro Malabar. That was rejected by the synod and the rejection was supported by the Oriental Congregation. The restitution plan was stalled as a result.
I wish I could give more information, but this is all I know.
I am grateful for you sharing the information you know!
So the money is to go to the Archdiocese. I wonder where the money is supposed to come from. Does the Cardinal have $10 million dollars personally? Or is the money supposed to come from the other dioceses in India or the Indian Government? It is interesting that there is a plan. But the plan was rejected, so perhaps there is no one who actually has the money to pay.
The money cannot come from Indian government.
Ernakulam already has a large flow of money through her institutions, and it will not be justice to get money from other dioceses with much lower budgets.
The problem is at dead end because the Cardinal has little in personal wealth, and attempting a fund raising will only backfire at this stage. As far as I know, the restitution demand is to correct the wrong done. I don't think the diocese is financially strained because of the loss.
There are speculations that others may have possibly benefitted from the deal, the Cardinal being a scapegoat. The Cardinal was not willing to disclose more details. The reports from the investigation of Vatican is not available to public.