NEW WEBSITE: www.ephesians-511.net
Rev. Fr. Nambikkai Nathan, Director,
Archdiocesan Pastoral Centre, Madras-Mylapore
Chennai 600 004
July 30, 2007
email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 2:52 PM
KIND ATTENTION: FR. NAMBIKKAI NATHAN, ARCHDIOCESAN PASORAL CENTRE
Dear Rev. Fr. Nambikkai Nathan,
Subsequent to my meeting with you in your office on July 28, I sent a letter of confirmation to His Grace, the Archbishop. As I did not have your email address, I could not mark a copy to you.
I tried to take a printout for you just now, but my printer is malfunctioning.
Accordingly, I telephoned you just now and obtained the email address of the Archdiocesan Pastoral Centre APC] from you so that I could send you this letter, attached here as a Word document named “LAMM 3”.
Kindly read it. A hardcopy on my letterhead will be delivered to you as soon as my printer is fixed.
When I met with you, I gave you a copy of the then Secretary-General, CBCI, Bishop Percival Fernandez’ letter of November 29, 2005 to me, as well as a copy of our Archbishop’s letter dated February 6, 2006 written to me in connection with Bishop Percival’s letter of November 29, 2005.
Three weeks before I received our Archbishop’s letter, which was only on February 20, 2006, I had already written a very detailed response to Bishop Percival, and the date of the letter is January 30, 2006.
It was sent to Bishop Percival as well as our Archbishop both by email as well as hardcopy.
Our Archbishop’s copies were hand-delivered by me to Fr. Paul Raj, the Archbishop’s Secretary, not once but twice. Neither Bishop Percival nor our Archbishop acknowledged receipt of my letter of January 30, 2006.
That letter is the second attachment to this email as a Word document titled “LETTER TO THE SECRETARY GENERAL_CATHOLIC BISHOPS’ CONFERENCE OF INDIA”. Kindly read it very carefully, as it details all the communications from this ministry that the Archbishop’s office has not acknowledged, and this goes back even when he was the Bishop of Vellore, and I used to write to him.
A hardcopy on my letterhead will be delivered to you along with the other letter [dated July 28] in a day or two.
Subsequent to my handing over the Archbishop’s copy of the referred letter to Fr. Paul Raj on January 30, 2006, I again met Fr. Paul Raj on February 21, 2006 against the directives in the Archbishop’s letter dated February 6 [received by me only the previous day, on February 20th.]
I once again gave the Reverend Father a copy of the same letter of January 30, and I spent half an hour with him, as I spent an hour with you on the 28th of this month, showing him the letters to this ministry from scores of Bishops, as well as some of my many reports which I have sent to His Grace, the Archbishop but which remain unacknowledged. Fr. Paul Raj assured me that he would discuss my letter with the Archbishop, and get back to me. After that I never heard again from the Archbishop’s office.
Among other things, I oppose the introduction of the practice of the Hindu spiritual philosophy and practical discipline of yoga, Zen Buddhist meditation, the alternative medicines / therapies of Pranic Healing and Reiki, Acupuncture, etc. in Christian institutions by our priests and nuns. I have been continuously researching, from a CATHOLIC perspective, these issues for almost ten years now.
His Grace, Most Rev. Lawrence Pius, Auxiliary Bishop, can vouch for this, as I have personally met with him in connection with these matters, and had detailed discussions over several hours with His Grace on at least three occasions in December 1999 / January 2000.
My articles, based on recent Vatican Documents, the writings of our Popes, speeches and letters of Bishops and priests, and other Catholic writers on New Age themes, continue to be published in Catholic periodicals.
They are also widely circulated as hardcopies in the thousands to Bishops, priests, Catholic ministries and lay leaders all over the world, and are also available at my website, www.ephesians-511.net [at present only 50% of the material has been uploaded as we have changed to a new website recently].
In October 2005, I released a 96-page report on the “heresy, blasphemy, sacrilege and New Age” that is being perpetrated and propagated at several of our Catholic Ashrams.
My records will show that I delivered two copies of this report, at two different times, to the Archbishop’s office.
On May 5, 2004, I wrote a report titled “‘New Age’ in the Catholic Church in India”.
These are just two reports among many that received scores of positive and encouraging responses from Bishops and all our Cardinals. Except from the Archdiocese of Madras-Mylapore.
Another point that I am trying to convey is this:
In my findings, and therefore included in my reports, are the names of priests who have been actively promoting [sometimes with the support of their Bishops or Superiors] the earlier-mentioned [and other] New Age practices which have been condemned as anti-Christian by many Bishops’ Commissions, and mentioned specifically or by description in Vatican Documents, by recognized ministries like EWTN, etc.
[Even four or five Archbishops and Bishops are named in some of my reports, which have also exposed CBCI-funded or supported Catholic organisations which were propagating New Age errors.]
The reports were publicised usually only after the concerned authority or person or organisation either refused to accept the information provided by this ministry about their erroneous practices, or publicly condemned this ministry as itself being uninformed and therefore in error. It is therefore but natural that not a few priests, who are either named in these reports, associated with these practices, or favourable to them, will be inimical to this ministry. I cannot expect to get a fair hearing from them, leave alone a word or letter of recommendation.
Without mentioning names here, the only time that His Grace the Archbishop wrote to me [February 6, 2006, against Bishop Percival’s letter], he asked me to meet him with two such priests.
I did meet one of the two priests before and after meeting Fr. Paul Raj, and again handed him, after discussions, some of my papers. But he is already biased against me for my opposition to his promotion of yoga a few years ago. The less said about the other Reverend Father, the better. He and some priests of his Congregation – including theologians- have labelled me as a “fundamentalist” for my standing on Church teaching as opposed to the liberalism and post-modernist ideas that they espouse.
Of course, I do have hundreds of supportive letters from dozens of priests from all over India and overseas.
I can truthfully say that, with 90% of the Bishops and Commissions of the CBCI having written hundreds of letters to me, I have not received one single letter criticising the findings or conclusions of any of my reports.
As regards letters from priests, I have received three or four negative responses, and as many threat letters and telephone calls, but all of these priests favour the ideologies and practices that I expose as New Age.
Under these circumstances, I would like to say that my Bishop, as representative of the teaching Magisterium of the Church, is the one who I would expect to read my reports and determine whether they are in line with Catholic teaching or not. I do not think that I am asking for anything that is not routine.
Canon Law gives lay people the right- and duty- to meet with their pastors and Bishops, especially when it comes to matters concerning the Faith; they, in turn, must make themselves available, accessible, and evince interest in the issues raised by the laity whom they have been ordained to minister to, to serve.
It is also a matter of common courtesy that letters from laity to the Bishops must be acknowledged.
I have personally seen my letter to His Grace being downloaded, and a printout taken for the Archbishop.
But the simple act of clicking on the reply button to send an acknowledgement to the sender is avoided.
I trust that with all this correspondence through your good self, and the new Archbishop’s Secretary, Rev. Fr. Benjamin Susai, the communication between laity and the ecclesial /episcopal authorities will improve.
Attachments: LETTER TO THE ARCHBISHOP_3 doc.; LETTER TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, CBCI doc.
COPY TO: ARCHBISHOP OF MADRAS-MYLAPORE. HARDCOPIES DELIVERED PERSONALLY ON AUGUST 06
BECAUSE OF PROBLEMS WITH PRINTER. [BOTH APC IDS GIVEN BY FR. NAMBIKKAI NATHAN BOUNCED]
Leave a Reply