The Syro-Malabar synod of bishops is the apex body, which, along with its head with its head, leads the Syro-Malabar church. The Major Archbishop is not the Pope of the Church. The synod is vested with much authority, but there is apprehension that the Synod lacks maturity of wisdom to lead amidst a crisis of its own making. It looks as though the Synod has a propensity to lead the Church into tragic situations. The first elected Major Archbishop was accused of serious errors in the sale of lands belonging to the Archdiocese of Ernakulam-Angamaly. And how did the Synod deal with such a moral issue? One archbishop said, “There is nothing immoral in it, it is what everyone does.” The Synod took a stand of total denial. “The Synod and the Permanent Synod of the Syro-Malabar Church are convinced of the fact that Cardinal Alencherry and those involved in the sale have not made any financial misappropriation in the land deal.” This is a quote from the letter of Archbishop Joseph Pamplany sent to John Alen, the editor of Crux on July 25, 2023. If what the Synod says is correct, why did the Pope remove the Major Archbishop from the administration of the archdiocese? Why did the Congregation for Oriental Churches order the “restitution or recovery of the financial losses suffered”? Why did the High Court of Kerala say that Cardinal Alencherry was guilty of “criminal conspiracy hatched with the purchasers of the property” on 25/10/2021 in the land sale scam? Why has the Supreme Court of India concurred with that view in a judgement passed on 17.03.2023? The Synod has committed a fundamental error by foiling all attempts at reconciliation. The Synod took a dialectical stand that blocked any and every attempt made for an amicable settlement. It was right versus wrong – Hegelian dialectics. The only solution sought was the punishment of perceived wrong doers.
Then the Synod dug up an unresolved issue from the past – a 1999 decision that remained unimplemented due to protests from different parts of the church. That was the 50-50 formula of uniformity. It bore telltale symptoms of a shrewdly schemed project aimed at bringing the whistle-blowers to their knees, knowing fully well that the archdiocese would stand as one man behind them. Here also the attitude was dialectical, crushing dissent within the synod and outside of it using a papal letter as weapon. The Archdiocese of Ernakulam-Angamaly resisted the Synod’s decision. The Synod or some in the name of the Synod repeatedly asked the Vatican to interfere and punish the ‘rebels’. All attempts at dialogue were torpedoed by one or the other member of the Synod. That was the reason for Abp Cyril Vasil’s first ill-fated visit. The second visit proved that he understood the ground reality. That warned Vatican of serious failures and dishonest activities on the part of those whom they had trusted. A genuine attempt by Abp Vasil for a mutually agreed settlement was also foiled. That made the Pope aware that he had been misinformed. All that the Pope was told was a folly that originated in someone’s mind. All these led to the removal of the Major Archbishop. The Hegelian dialectics he adopted led to his downfall. The Synod had only one solution in mind – weeding out. They could never imagine that it was a good-versus-good conflict, something that could lead to creating a harmonious Church with multiple choices. There was no serious search for peace and reconciliation. Contradictions have to be resolved within one’s consciousness; they should not be allowed to spill out as conflicts that divide the community. The Synod always used the wrong methodology of war. War mongers had the upper hand in the Synod. This is the lesson to be learned form Francis Fukuyama’s article written after the fall of Berlin – The End of History. The dialectical understanding of history has to give way to a different approach. This is what Pope Francis has shown. Unfortunately, our synod follows a dialectical way, which has produced only tragic results in history: “The Christian view knows only partial or episodic tragedy. Within its essential optimism there are moments of despair; cruel setbacks can occur during the ascent toward grace.” But it is precisely the measure of man’s guilt that makes the coming of Christ a necessary miracle.