What is the need of the radical changes in the centuries old traditions of the Knanaya community?
I refer to your posting with the object: Copy of the KANA Letter to Rome. From :aesthappan@yahoo.com, on: 19/07/2007 03:21 to: <knanaya-groups.com> I have added the same letter at the end.
I don’t understand the basic problem with the KANA people. I have tried my best to leave apart the realm of faith and religion for the time being which is quoted and misquoted, necessarily and unnecessarily in the above letter (although, I could not keep away completely from it, since it is obviously intertwined. We shall remain in the social or juridical sphere in the American context, “the land of freedom” (freedom to and for what?????) for the time being.
I think that I, a knanaya person, am free to marry a non-knanaya person (within the limits of the civil and social rules of the state regarding marriage like the bans to marry minors, incest marriage, etc.) and I believe that it is a basic right of mine, as a human being. At the same time, I hope and I wish that I, a knanaya person, were free to marry another knanaya person and this too form part of my basic right, I think. Again, I think I have the freedom to create an association or a community of all those persons who have acted like me, or who think like me, if it does not violate the laws of the state. Just like the KCCNA and KANA, which are associations of certain persons who think in a certain way, who have a vision together for the future. I don’t think that it is wrong. Now, if I create a community or an association, it is up to me, or to the members of this association or community and not any outside agency, to decide the membership criteria, I mean who should be the members and the criterion of their selection and maintenance, safeguarding the laws of the state. But when it comes to the approval from the part of a higher authority like the state or the church, it can put forward some general or particular regulations and the violation of such regulations can bring forth the non-approval from the part of the higher authority. (I know that these things are taken for granted, and there is no need to write it here, but I add them for the precision and the correct development and understanding of the ideas that I want to express).
I don’t think that there exists a rule in the united states that bans the creation of associations based on ethnic, or racial basis. Do you think that the blacks or whites in the US are banned from forming associations of their own? Do you think that there do not exist associations based on nationalities and nations in the United States? Are they not ethnic at least in the broader sense, I mean the Korean, the Chinese, the Punjabis, etc.? Now you can say that it is the membership criteria that should be looked at, I mean, there should not be exclusive membership. But is it that such associations should or can include also members of other races or ethnic communities, I mean an association for the blacks should or can include also the whites or the Punjabi Association of the United States (purely out of fantasy, I don’t know whether there exists such an association) should admit the Malayalies, or at least, open to admit members from other races or ethnic communities? Is it that there should be 27% of reservation for the SC/ST in the community? Of course it can accept persons from other nationalitites or cultures or races, if their rules foresee it, but I don’t think that it is illegal that a national or cultural or racial association having its own rules and regulations delimiting its own membership criteria within a particular group.
It is not my birth right to be a member of any communities or associations, but I can be a member, if I wish so and if I have the eligibility required by the same communities or the associations. It is up to the community or association to determine whether I am appropriate according to the rules and regulations of the community or association, and if appropriate, to make me a member of it. In the same manner, being a member of it, I can remain in the community as long as I wish, from my part, and from the part of the community, it is free to expel me if I am not ready to follow or if I violate its existing rules and regulations whether it is written or unwritten formed of traditions and practices. In a nut shell, there are subjective and objective factors in the criterion of membership and in the criterion of dismembering.
We shall analyse the case of the Knanaya ethnic community. It has no written rules or regulations. It has only oral and ritual traditions and practices and the rules of the community are formed out of such traditions. According to the tradition, one is Knanaya if one is born from both the Knanaya parents. But it is up to the community to determine one’s birth from the knanites which is done through the social acceptance, and thus admit one as a member of the community. I mean, one’s birth from the Knanaya parents alone is not enough to make one a member of the Knanaya community, but the recognition of the community is needed, which in our case is taken for granted with the social acceptance (there are various methods of social acceptance by which one is agreed as born from both Knanaya parents but I don’t enter in that topic now). One has the freedom to abstain from following its customs and traditions and thus become practically an inactive member or a non-member of the Knanaya community, even if there does not exist a formal act of dismembering, according to the wish of the member. So also one can freely follow its traditions and practice and actively propagate for the growth of the community, safe-guarding the civil and moral rules. At the same time, the community is free to punish, even with expulsion, those members who violates its rules.
For the Knanaya community, the only violation of its rules which is punished is an exogamous marriage of its members by which one is expelled from the community. In another way, it is one who opts voluntarily, with full knowledge, such a punishment, by entering in an exogamous marriage. (Of course, there are some cases, in which one does not opt the partner from other communities voluntarily, but pushed by the circumstances and some times without full knowledge.) By such a punishment, one does not become a non-knanaya, but only loses his membership in the community. It is obligatory here to enter into the question of the why of the punishment for the exogamous marriage, its consequences and to see whether it is contrary to the civil rules. (But I leave aside this topic also owing to the lack of time and hoping to write once in the near future.) In this paragraph, I was trying to point out two important controversial areas of the community, namely the membership criterion and the preservation of the same. While the expulsion of the members who violate the rules of the community is seen “dehumanizing practice” by certain persons, it is to be kept in mind that we judge this within the context of “The Land of Freedom”, which reserves itself the right even to eliminate (and not only expelling and dehumanising, but non-humanising) its members (capital punishment is permitted in the USA!!!).
Now, we shall analyse the case of KANA, the Knanaya Association of the North America (I presume that you are a member of it, or at least a sympathiser). I don’t know exactly what is the membership criterion followed in this association. Yet, I raise some practical enigmas related to its criterion of membership. If my understanding is correct (and hence, if I am incorrect on the membership criteria of KANA, I renounce to what I have written beneath on the KANA), one can be a member of this association, if both or one of the parents of a person is Knanaya, or if one is married to a Knanaya, or if one is adopted by a Knanaya family (?? I don’t know what is the nature of this “Knanaya family”!). As an association, it can take any criterion to determine its members and here, I think, there are three fundamental relations which are the basic criteria of membership: the descendants, marriage and adoption . That means, in order to be a knanite, one should have a relationship, whether genealogical or matrimonial or legal (adoptive), with a knanite. In other terms, a person without a genealogical or matrimonial or legal (adoptive) relationship with a Knanaya person cannot be a member of the association. But, if I am a person not born from at least a knanite, and am impeded to have a marriage to a knanite, (be it that I have already married to a non-knanite, be it that I am a down hence unable to contract a valid marriage, be it that I am a consecrated (I intend, bachelor by proper decision)) and if no knanite adopt me, then I can’t be a member of the KANA!!. If George W. Bush (who is not born from none of the Knanaya parents and is already married to a non-knanite and is not adopted by a knanite) wants to be a member of it, he cannot be a member of it.
Is KANA doing justice to such a person, by not allowing him to be a member of the association, just because he has no possibility of creating such relationships? That means, it is not an open membership to all, as is often heard and advocated, but remains a parental membership, be it ancestral or marital or adoptive. But are they sure whether they are doing justice to all, when they adopt such a criterion? If not how can they speak of an open membership in the social sphere? Does it not remain ethnic? Again, if we turn to the religious sphere, can the Pope Benedict XVI (it can be a Raman or Muhammad who is not born from none of the Knanaya parents and is already a consecrated person and is not adopted by a knanite) be a member of it? In the same way, such a non-catholic (who is not born from none of the Knanaya parents and is already married to a non-knanite or any other forms cited above or not) who wants to be a member is not permitted to be its member, then how can we resolve the accusation made to the knanites of the non-evangelization and non-openness? All that they do is little wide-opening, and not the whole opening as they profess. In the style of Vaikkom Muhammad Bashir, it can be said, “‘immini belya’ opening”. Of course, it is a wider opening, but yet unable to surpass the accusations. It is not a problem of KANA alone, but of any associations, communities, etc. In this paragraph I was trying to highlight the incapability of any associations for a full opening with regard to the membership.
The more, in the modern world, especially in the US, where divorces are very often, if a “non-knanite prior to his/her marriage to a knanite, who became member of the KANA through marriage” (I had to use this expression since I don’t know whether the expression ‘non-knanite member of the KANA’ is correct, because I don’t know whether a ‘non-knanite’ remains a ‘non-knanite’ after one’s membership in the KANA. If such a person continues to be a ‘non-knanite’ even after his membership in the KANA, it means that there exists two types of membership in the KANA, namely one for the knanites and one for the non-knanites. Now is it fair and just that one be a member of the association which has the appellative knanaya where one cannot become a knanaya even after his entrance in the association/ community? Is it not discrimination having two types of membership in the same association for two groups of people against their will? Is it just to have knanaya and non-knanaya membership in a knanaya association? Does it remain a ‘knanaya association if it includes also non-knanites? Hence the rest of my argument is formed hypothesising that a ‘non-knanite’ can and should become a ‘knanite’ through marriage to be a member of the KANA or becomes a knanite at least on the moment of his membership in the KANA.) get divorced, what will be his/her position in the association? Will he/she be allowed to continue in the association and hence also in the Knanaya community just because of his ex-husbandship/ex-wifeship to a knanite? Or if they have a child/children (who are members of the association according to the descendant criteria), will he/she be allowed to stay as the father or mother of a member/s who is/are knanite/s! I mean, to be a member, one should have a relationship to a knanite, but it is not necessary to retain the same membership. Do you think that it is just, to allow such a person to continue in the association while there exists no more ancestral or marital relationship to a knanite which is abolished according to the regulations of the state (the divorce), when they deny the membership to all others who don’t have such a relationship (as is explained in the above paragraph)? The problem becomes more intense when we analyse the case of the Church annulments of marriage. In the above situation, a non-knanaya becomes member of the KANA and hence Knanaya through a marriage that never existed. Should he/she be allowed to continue in the KANA?
On the other hand, if they expel such a member from the community, do you think that it is fair to expel a member only because of a divorce, (which is accepted and permitted by the law of the United States and most of the religions including almost all the Christian denominations other than the Catholic Church), while they and you consider the removal of a member for a non-endogamous marriage as “unchristian and dehumanizing practice”. We have to think also that, with regard to the marriage, it is a positive and active decision from the part of the person to marry, whom to marry, etc., while in the case of a divorce, it need not be always an active decision of the person, instead one can also suffer it, and in that case, one can be expelled from the community or association for a divorce suffered where the person has no active responsibility and do you think that such an expulsion is better to an expulsion based on one’s personal voluntary decision, which at least is presumed?
I was pointing out to the fact that by the creation of KANA (with its actual rules as I have understood, my understanding may also be incorrect), they are not able to overcome the accusations that they have charged against the Knanaya community, namely, the criteria of membership and the exclusion which continue also in the KANA in other forms and terms. What they do is a wider opening, (“immini bellya opening”, if we utilise the style of Vaikkom Muhammad Beshir) but not the whole, retaining the same accusations they have made against the Knanaya community. Hence what is the need of the radical changes in the centuries old traditions of the community?
First of all, the community is not against the freedom of its members to go out, while it is not obliged to give the freedom to all others to be its member. Again, one is free to create one’s own association or community, if one find enough members that share one’s ideas and if they follow one, without violating the laws of the state. The same is possible for the out gone members of the community, that they can form their associations. But when one is inside the community - even if one can of course create one’s own groups, associations or communities within or outside of it - one should not create or form part of groups or associations that contrast or violate its rules.
Another possibility that one remains in the community changing its rules and regulations, as and whenever one want, if all its members permit me to do it. I think this is the possibility better suited to each person, because the community exists according to one’s vision and hence there is much harmony between one’s way of thinking and the way of living of the community. But one will opt such a possibility only if one is not-enough prudent. Because, if one say that the community should continuously evolve according to one’s thinking, one is not giving voice and justice to the thinking of the other persons of the community where one is stealing their birth right to live in the community how it was and how it is. Of course, no community can exist as such for always, there is some change in every moment of its existence, but there is and should be something that is permanent which should be the substance or that which creates the substance of the community. With regard to the knanaya community, like any other community, I think, the substance of it is the “we-feeling” which of course is created by many of its traditions, customs, history and mode of living of its people, etc. Its traditions really comprise the faith aspects and the social aspects of ethnicity which is related to its membership as well, where we cannot close our eyes to the endogamous practice of it.
While the community admits the freedom of its members to be out of the community, in the same manner, it demands to safeguard the unalienable freedom of its members to get marry to a person who may be a member of the same community and the freedom of such married persons to organise themselves in an association or a community or to be in such a community that exists already. I don’t think that a person can question such a freedom of any person in a “land of freedom”. Now what is to be done if there arise a problem between two fractions within such a community, where one fraction thinks that a particular pattern of living of that community is to be reformed and the other fraction (be it just two persons) thinks the contrary, I mean, to leave that particular pattern of living as it was without altering it? If it is the freedom which is the criteria of our decision, the freedom of even a single person should be respected and in that case the community should be left as it since there is no other possibility for them to maintain their freedom. While all the rest, can form a community with the necessary change that it would like to make, without crossing the boundary of the freedom of the other persons. The already existing structure should get the preference, while the reform implies a new, even if only reformed, community and one should not be obliged to be a member of it. That is the real freedom as I intend it.
With these premises, I shall try to analyse the above letter.
1. A rescript (re – scrittum =written in/as response), is a reply on certain issues and questions from the Church authorities, which may be conditioned by temporal, cultural and geographical particularities. Again the question and the answer may be influenced by the pre-conceived ideas of the persons involved. That does not mean that the reply is incorrect or correct eternally, but only that there may also be involved these kinds of factors too. After all, the same is true with the civil court judgments, i.e., if there exists the possibility of the appeal in higher courts, it is just because of the fact that there exists the possibility of mistake in the decisions of the lower courts. If the previous decisions were correct, is there the need of an appeal which may change the previous decisions? The same is valid in certain Church ‘decisions’. The letter on question speaks only of the non-applicability of the practice of endogamy as a criterion of membership in the Knanaya mission in the actual American cultural context, if I understand it well. That means that the church has neither condemned nor ratified such a practice, which is clear from the KANA letter itself, where it is written, “The rescript clearly ordered that practice cannot be imported into this country.”, which means, it could be followed in India, and the only thing which cannot be done is the importation. Hence, I believe that the phrase “It (the rescript under discussion, Prot. N, 124/83 dated January 19, 1986) gave directives against Kottayam Eparchy’s practice of expulsion from the church and parish when a member marries a spouse from another Catholic eparchy.”, is a clear sign of deception, because it has not given any (clear or non-clear) directives against the Kottayam Eparchy’s practice. The Church members are free to appeal for their cause until there comes out a dogmatic or at least a definitive decision from the Church, which then, obviously cannot be changed.
I would like to bring to your mind an example. In 1885 or in 1887 (I am not completely sure of the year) there was the synod of the Indian bishops at Bangalore which has discussed the question of giving autonomous dioceses to the St. Thomas Christians. The bishops had decided and hence asked the Holy See not to create dioceses on the basis of the caste, intending to Southist – Northist division. (The foreigners in general has seen everything in India with the category of caste which still persists in certain parts!). The same was the vision of the then Apostolic Visitor, and hence the two new vicariates were formed on the territorial basis. But in 1889 we see a Vicar General exclusively for the knanites in the Kottayam Vicariate, appointed by Mar Charles lavinge with the explicit consent of the Holy See. And in 1911, a new vicariate exclusively for the knanites (Gens Suddistica) was formed on the (unanimous) request of all the three bishops of the Syro-Malabar Church. The matter was well studied by the congregations and by the Pope himself, as it is understood from the Papal Bull. It took 24 years to ratify a negative response given by the bishops at Banglore, but finally it did. It is just few years back that the Holy See, after having a thorough study of the matter by a commission of a Cardinals, asked to maintain the status quo of the Diocese, while asking the Syro- Malabar Church to seek ways to upgrade its ecclesiastical status. And as a reply to such a request from the Holy See that the Syro-Malabar Synod has elevated the diocese to the rank of a Metropolitan See, with the consent of the Holy See. And how can the author of the above letter write in the right mind that “Presumably Rome was not aware of this unchristian and dehumanizing practice”?, after all these processes? How can you to re-post the same letter knowing that it is incorrect?
If we were keeping silence to the decision of the synod of the Bishops at Banglore, and the Apostolic Visitor, we would not have our present Diocese of Kottayam. Be clear, here, I am not speaking of the rightness or wrongness of the creation or the continuation of a diocese based on caste or ethnicity (leaving apart the question whether the knanites form a caste or not), but the possibility of change of the decisions of the Church and the possibility to appeal for the same.)
2. Again it is interesting to verify the many incongruence that we find in the letter.
“He (Bishop Mar Moolakkatt) is even boasting that the Knanaya Missions in North America are not allowed to establish parish councils and assemblies and that they are run by “ushers” instead, as that would be tantamount to accepting Rome’s directives.”,
“…. earlier he had come up with a formula, giving membership to the non endogamous partner of non-endogamous union and denying it to the other partner. Essentially it divides the family by asking one partner to stay in the fold and another partner to seek membership from another parish of another eparchy.”
“Hence it is difficult to understand why the Bishop of Kottayam interferes in all the Knanaya mission activities and a number of people proclaim loyalty to him.”.
In the last phrase, we see the complaint that Mar Moolakkatt is engaging in the affairs of another diocese, while the letter as a whole is a tacit complaint (even if, not expressed clearly in the letter), that he does not act according to the rescript (which is not directed to him!). But the first two quotations are clear evidences of their tacit admission of the positive role of the Bishop of Kottayam in the Knanaya missions in the US. They are not criticizing the juridical status of the Bishop of Kottayam in the second citation, but their disagreement to the formula, which is a clear sign of their admittance of the authority of the Bishop of Kottayam in the Knanaya mission matters, otherwise why should they bother about a formula which comes from a person who has nothing to do with them? How comes that the bishop does not allow to establish parish councils, if he has no power at all there and why should they be bothered about a phrase of a Bishop who has no power at all? And how comes that “a number of people proclaim loyalty to him”, if he has no power? They may say that it is juridical power.
Of course, the juridical authority is an important factor in the Church, but that alone does not constitute the authority in the Church. Just think of the moral authority. Personal jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction are two themes which have given a lot of heated discussions in the Church. The Latin Church was insisting on the territorial jurisdiction, but it is giving a higher ‘space’ to the personal jurisdiction nowadays, especially giving credit to the Oriental Churches which demands the personal jurisdiction and the realms of personal jurisdiction is increasing day by day. The erection of the Syro-Malabar Vicariates and the Syro-Malabar Hierarchy in Kerala (1923) and its later territorial expansions (especially that in1953 and in 1955) are the results of our demands for wider personal jurisdiction. The erection of the Syro- Malabar diocese in Chicago also is yet another land mark. The Syro-Malabar parishes in many cities, which are under the local Latin Bishops is another example of such personal jurisdiction, with different grades of authority. In all these examples, some form of interference were done in order to safeguard the right pastoral care of the ‘own people’ and hence, I don’t think that the interference of the bishop of Kottayam for the cause of the Knanaya missions which were formed by his collaboration, is wrong.
First of all, it is the Bishop of Kottayam who has sent some priests of his diocese to cater to the needs of the Indians (hence in the national level, which was later reduced to the ritual level and again to the ethnic level, when other priests came for each specific communities). It is the local Bishop alone or in consultation and co-operation with the Bishop or Bishops concerned of other nationalities, cultures or ethnicities to make arrangements for the special care to be given to ‘his people of a different culture’. It is up to the bishops to determine the terms and conditions as a possibility, and none of them are obliged to do it, if not morally. It is up to both of the bishops to determine who should be the co-operators and beneficiaries of such a mission, if it is done in co-operation.
The first mission that was started was an Indian mission, I mean, all Indians could have got membership in it, while other nationals, like, Koreans, Chinese, English could not, even if the priest missionary of the above mission was a knanite. The local bishop could have arranged the scope and limitations of the mission, but it was not up to him to decide who an Indian is. At the same way, it is not the local Latin Bishop who should determine, who a Syro-Malabarian is which is up to the Syro-Malabar Church to determine, with the consent of the authority. In the same way, it is up to the Bishop of the Knanaya Catholic community and not the local Latin or any other Bishop to determine who a Knanaya Catholic is. And in this matter, I think, the local Bishop has mistaken, if he has not sought the opinion of the Bishop of the Knanaya Catholic community to define who a Knanaya Catholic is, in order to define the Knanaya mission. If there were specific missions for the others, I don’t find the need to enlarge the sphere of action of the Knanaya mission, which should have left exclusively for the knanites.
The term, Knanaya mission could be understood in many ways: 1. A mission done by the knanites for the non-knanites (like the European missionaries who came in India, where, the operators were Europeans and the beneficiaries were Indians.); 2. A mission done by the knanites for the knanites and the non-knanites without difference; 3. A mission done by the knanites for the knanites alone and closed to all the others; 4. A mission done by the knanites specifically for the knanites but open to all the others for the spiritual needs.
The diocese of Kottayam is of the fourth kind, it is for the knanites, but offer its services to the others. The Syro-Malabar diocese of Chicago is also of the same type. It is a (mission) diocese specifically for the Syro-Malabarians, but open to all for the spiritual needs. If it is open to the Syro-Malabar, Latin or faithful of any other Rite in the same manner, it won’t be a Syro-Malabar mission anymore, but a copy of the Latin Diocese, whereby it loses its specificity. It will be the same, if we want a Knanaya mission done by the knanites, for the knanites and the non-knanites without distinction and especially in a Syro-Malabar diocese, where only Syro-Malabarians can be its members due to the specificity of the diocese. Since there is no (so far officially recognised) ritual difference between the knanites and the other Syro-Malabar faithful, since the both follow the same Rite and hence a carbon copy of the latter except the fact that it is done by the knanites, then what is the need for a special Knanaya mission? What the knanites want in the United States and anywhere else in the world is such a mission, where we can safeguard the particularity (identity) and the universality of the Church of God which is a communion of Churches.
Again, if you have quoted correctly the phrase,
“It is the hope of this Congregation that the decision will clarify all uncertainties and facilitate the pastoral care of the Syro Malabar faith in the Knanaya Missions”,
there is much room for ambiguity in this phrase. I hope that it would be a spelling mistake: most probably, it would be, ‘Syro- Malabar faithful’ and not ‘Syro- Malabar faith’. (not having the original copy, I have not verified it.) I don’t know how far we can speak of a ‘Syro- Malabar faith’, rather it is Christian and Catholic faith expressed through various Rites including the Syro-Malabar. Again, pastoral care cannot be facilitated for the faith, but for the faithful, since pastor is in relation to the sheep, I mean, faithful and not to the faith. The real node of the problem lies, instead, if we accept the term, ‘Syro- Malabar faithful’, I mean, then we have to read, ‘the decision of the congregation will facilitate the pastoral care of the Syro- Malabar faithful in the Knanaya missions.’ What does such a phrase mean? In the Knanaya missions, there are Syro- Malabar faithful and who are these Syro- Malabar faithful in the Knanaya missions? Only knanaya Syro- Malabar faithful or that includes also the non-knanite Syro- Malabar faithful in the same manner? If it is the second case, what is the need of a Knanaya mission within the Syro- Malabar diocese where both have the same persons to cater? Is it what we wanted? If there exists already a diocese to cater to the Syro- Malabar faithful, is it not good that the Knanaya missions concentrate on its own people, like the Syro-Malabar diocese focused on the Syro- Malabar faithful and not catering specifically to the Latins, while it is open to offer its services to the Latins as well if needed?
3. I think that the concepts of purity and endogamy are two entirely different realities. ‘Endogamy’ comes from the two Greek words ‘endo’ which means within and ‘gamos’ which means wife. It has a secondary meaning of marriage as well. Hence it may mean first of all wife within (the same community or race) and secondly, marriage within (among the members of the same community or race). We cannot use it in the first sense to denote the practice of our community since our practice does not refer exclusively to the wives. I mean in our community not only the wives but also the husbands should be from the community. Hence it is in its wider, second sense that we use it, I mean, marriage within the community.
I would very voluntarily like to avoid the term ‘purity’ in our discussions, because it has very short relevance as blood purity or as genetic purity in the cultural or anthropological language, where the term is more frequently used to denote the moral, spiritual and physical purity of the persons in relation to the sacred. It is ridiculous to read this term associated to ‘non-blood transfusion’, conformity or non-conformity to the DNA test, etc. Nowadays, the term “purity of race” is used very less by the knanites, and if at all they use it, it does not form part of the essence of the Knanaya community. It is not because they are less convinced of their ‘purity’, but it has its original value only in a society where there is comparison between the internal groups, and hence in the classification between the superior and inferior groups which does not exist in today’s world. But at the same time, it does not lose its significance as a whole, since it remains a valid instrument in creating the unity among the members of the Knanaya community which (the unity) is the real essence of any community.
The more, I have serious doubt whether it is the opponents that attribute, more often, superiority based on the purity of race to the community (This does not mean that I affirm or negate that the community is pure. There can be or there could have been non-knanites in the knanaya community or vice-versa, I mean, knanites not recognised as knanites, by intentional or non intentional error. But the error or exception cannot be a valid justification to make it a general rule. But at the same time, I negate the affirmation that the community is superior to any other community in relation to its ‘purity’.), in order to attack it on two fronts. First of all, they want to attribute racism to the community which has a good market value in the international cultural debates today. Secondly, they want to prove that the community is not completely pure, which will add fuel to their plea to admit others as its members. But, the knanaya ‘concept of purity’ is something wider, and it is not exclusively genetic or racial purity, rather it is a holistic ‘ethnic purity’. The knanaya ‘concept of purity’ is a fidelity in maintaining the original and essential traditions and practices of the community as an ethnic community, in all its realms. Here, comes the need of opting the best means and factors that suit better to this fidelity, where comes the so-called ‘racial purity’(I prefer to call it genetic or genealogical purity, anyway) and the endogamous practice which is one of the best and valid means to maintain the genetic purity. It is not a sign of any complexes or mentalities like superiority or inferiority, but rather, a constant and centuries old fidelity of different generations of a group of persons who wanted to maintain their traditions and practices with simplicity, but with austerity.
If a monk is expelled from a monastery just because he is found to have a stable sexual relationship to a woman I, as a spectator feel it as an injustice towards him since the sexuality is one of the pure and sublime fundamental gifts of God. But if I know the history of the monastery and its rules and regulations, I won’t feel it so injustice, because it is up to the monk to opt between his continuity as member in the monastery (if it is permitted further) maintaining the chastity or to live with the woman abandoning the monastery. He is not condemned or punished by excluding him from the monastery, but he is judged as inadequate according to the rules of the monastery to remain there in that state of life.
If a priest of the Latin or Syro-Malabar or Syro-Malankara Rite of the Catholic Church marries, he still retains his priesthood, since the ordination has an indelible character, but is excluded from the active ministry within the Church. For a spectator out of the Church or even within the Church, it may be a form of injustice towards him, since he is excluded from the active ministry just because he is married. But for the Church, (which I, as a priest of the Syro-Malabar Rite of the Catholic Church, believe and sustain completely), it is not an injustice, but a question of fidelity to one’s vocation and promise or vow.
Likewise, for a spectator, the community’s practice of endogamy and hence the exclusion of exogamous knanites can be felt as an injustice. But for a knanite, who knows its history and traditions, and hence lives it as a passion and emotion, his endogamous status is a challenge to be lived for the cause of the aforesaid fidelity to the community.
4. Purity is an abstract concept, which does not exist as such in the universe and hence not perceptible like the whiteness. We don’t find whiteness in the universe, but we find it as an adjective, like ‘white house’. In the same way pure cannot be used as an entity, but only as an adjective, like ‘pure water’. The adjectives are always relative, and never ‘the perfect’. When I say “pure water”, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is 100% H2O. Neither it is obligatory that I have to go to the lab to test the water whenever I want to say that it is pure water. Does the non- pure character make it non-water? The concept of purity, where there exists the border between the pure and the impure, is very difficult to distinguish. The paternity or maternity of a person is a question of social acceptance and for the same, there are many methods including, what is told by the mother, the father, the religious or social authority, the doctor who may make use of different scientific tests including the DNA test, etc. The social acceptance is not a scientific truth, even if it can make use of the scientific methods and results as a valid criteria. If you think that the criteria of membership in the community should be the knanitehood tested and verified by the DNA tests, it can well be done. I have no problem at all. But you have to define validly who genetically a knanite is, which I think will be very difficult. Again, I hope that the same criterion (DNA test) will be followed for all other social realities and institutions like, the fatherhood, the motherhood, etc. I mean, one can say that one’s father is ‘X’ only after doing the DNA test.
5. “Establishing endogamous parishes would have no legal, moral or religious standing in this country, as it would promote discrimination based on racial purity….”
I don’t understand the argument that “Establishing endogamous parishes …. would promote discrimination based on racial purity….”. I would like to put it in another terms, establishing ethnic parishes would give to those persons who are interested and are eligible to manifest their Christian and Catholic faith in a manner closer to that of their forefathers (ethnic purity) without depriving anyone of anything. It is one more possibility of expressing Catholic faith - without negating anything to anyone - together with the many other diverse forms that exist within the Church. It is not a discrimination, because all who are eligible can make use of this possibility, and it is not obligatory that all should make use of this possibility. Again, those who are not eligible are not deprived of the expression of Catholic faith, but only that they cannot express their Catholic faith through this possibility. They can make use of any other possibility to which they are eligible.
Again, if you say that the distinction and the institutionalisation of the distinction (establishing endogamous parishes) would promote discrimination, we have to apply the same to all spheres of human and extra-human life. For example, a snake park is a discrimination to all other animals other than the snakes. Or the existence of the different and distinct religions would promote religious fundamentalism and hence religious clashes. Again, the existence of the different political parties creates political clashes in almost all nations. The wars are promoted by the division of the earth in various national states. The existence of different atoms brings about there clashes create atom bomb explosion. And hence…??? We have to get rid of all the distinctions and divisions? Should we eliminate all the religions so that there won’t be any religious clashes? Should the atoms be not separated anymore? I believe that it is not the distinct existence of a reality that brings about discrimination and clashes, but the attempts from within, or from any other external realities to destroy it on the pretext of accused superiority or inferiority that bring about clashes and discrimination. And in this sense I would say that any attempt to do away with the Knanaya community is a discrimination and hence racism, and the more, genocide or ethnocide.
The racism is not the existence of different races, but the feeling of superiority or inferiority that one feels with regard to another race and hence the attempts to destroy it or eliminate it. One of the worst crimes that the modern world condemn is genocide (Gens + cidere = killing or massacring a race, family, people or a nation) . Genocide is the complete or partial destruction of a ‘Gens’, a latin term which means, race, family, people or nation, (It is to be remembered that in the Papal Bull erecting the Kottayam Vicariath in 1911, the Latin term used to denote the knanites is ‘Gens Suddistica’) by the work of a single person or a group of persons. One of the best examples of such persons is Hitler who tried to put an end to the Jewish community in the world. Any attempt to destroy completely or partially the Knanaya community which is an ethnic community is to be viewed as a genocide or ethnocide and such actions and such persons are to be condemned.
With love
Byjuachan