Basil Fernando


(Ed. Note: This article continues the series of open letters about the issues regarding the treatment of Fr. Pallath J. Joseph of the Kerala Province of Jesuits in India. The first letter was sent to the superior general of the Jesuit order in Rome, the Rev. Fr. Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, on May 9, 2001. Because each letter begins with the same introduction stating the facts of the case, these have been omitted after the second letter below. For further details about the expulsion of Fr. Pallath from the Jesuit order, see the web site created by the Asian Human Rights Commission [AHRC] at http://jjpallath.ahrchk.net.)

Second Open Letter to Jesuit Superior: The Application of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to Members of Religious Orders

May 29, 2001

In the first open letter, the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) raised some concerns from a moral and human rights point of view regarding all of the episodes relating to the case of Fr. Pallath J. Joseph of which you are aware. While it is not our intention to interfere with the affairs of your order, there are matters of public interest about which many people, including our commission, is quite concerned. They are as follows:

(1) The physical assault of Fr. Pallath J. Joseph by two members of your order, together with several other hired thugs;

(2) The throwing of the body of Fr. Pallath over the wall of the Jesuit's premises and onto the road while he was in an unconscious or semiconscious state;

(3) Slandering Fr. Pallath by some members of your order using a gutter magazine called Crime Star;

(4) The filing of fabricated criminal complaints against Fr. Pallath with the view to have him arrested as a way to prevent him from entering a Jesuit house;

(5) The failure of the Jesuit superiors to respect an agreement entered into between Fr. Pallath and the Jesuits in Kerala through the mediation of the bishop of Calicut; and

(6) The failure to provide for the livelihood of Fr. Pallath after 33 years of service.

In this letter, we would like to draw your attention to your obligations under the U.N. conventions on human rights, which we will try to bring to your attention by reviewing the acts mentioned above from the standpoint of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The commitment of a person to a religious order is a link that a person makes in which the order becomes responsible for his life and well-being. The order thus becomes at the same time the person's employer and something more than the person's employer. An order is also a person's family, and therefore, it has the obligations of a family towards him. Thus, both from the point of view of an employer and a family, the order owes many obligations to the person, particularly from the point of view of the right to life and other rights.

The Universal Declaration is a landmark in the development of human consciousness on the obligations that human beings owe to each other. It established norms negating concepts of slavery and also unfair labour practices. It also negated the idea that in the name of the family the basic rights of people can be taken away as very often occurs to women. Moreover, it paved the way for some common standards to be established as common norms of decent treatment among human beings. On such matters, what is expected from a religious order is to provide an example of such treatment. Not to do so is to let down the common struggle for a more humane society.

Another basic notion of the Universal Declaration is an end to cruelty that is found particularly in Article 5: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Another fundamental pillar of the declaration is Article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

What is most basic to the Universal Declaration is the right to life in Article 3: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

As explained in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the right to life includes the right to work, the deprivation of which cannot happen arbitrarily and even when it does occur there is an obligation to provide for a person to be able to maintain his livelihood. The position of the Universal Declaration is that if these rights are not respected then the world will become a barbaric place.

AHRC urges you to examine the behaviour of the Jesuit order in the case of Fr. Pallath J. Joseph in light of the Universal Declaration. We still believe that good will shall prevail and that you will ensure respect for the Universal Declaration by correcting the violations that have occurred in this case, the details of which are now well-known.

Third Open Letter to Jesuit Superior: Why a Human Rights Organisation Is Interested in This Issue

June 14, 2001

This is my third open letter to you. Your silence is no deterrence to us, though your words may have made matters easier. In this letter, I wish to clarify our interest as a human rights organisation in this matter.

Human rights can be rooted in a culture only when the ethical and moral foundations of that society are compatible with human rights concepts, norms and standards. Religions play a significant role in the formation of the ethical and moral foundation of all societies. Religion can play either a positive or a negative role in making the ethical and moral norms of society compatible with human rights.

The following statement by British jurist Sir Ivor Jennings, who was well-known in South Asia in the middle of the 20th century and who played a role in writing some constitutions in the region, is useful to illustrate the point made here. What he said about the role of public opinion relating to crime applies equally to all human rights violations:

"The establishment of a sound public opinion about crime is obviously not an easy matter. Perhaps at this stage I ought to try to explain how the change occurred in England during the 19th century. It seems to me to have been almost entirely a religious movement which became secularised late in the century. So far as the wealthier classes were concerned, it was an evangelical revival within the Church of England which produced among many an acute social conscience. William Wilberforce and the Earl of Shaftsbury were the outstanding examples, and their influence on public opinion and upon public policy was profound, but it may be pointed out that those who did the most to clean up the corruption of the Unreformed Constitution, especially statesmen like William Pitt, Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Graham and Mr. Gladstone, were influenced by the same movement. The effect of the movement can be seen in the universities and schools also. Oxford and Cambridge were intensely concerned with religious questions a hundred years ago while the Oxford Movement was at its height. The public schools were inspired with the same spirit, especially after Arnold went to Rugby."

It is not possible to establish a sound public opinion on human rights in a country if the religious organisations flout human rights. In the case of Fr. Pallath, the violations by Jesuit superiors in Kerala are not only blatant and open but also criminal. The connivance by Jesuit authorities in such actions is even more surprising.

Thus, what we as a human rights organisation are doing is to challenge the ethical and moral basis of your actions. You are not creating sound public opinion to promote human rights, instead you are obstructing it. This debate is thus necessary. Therefore, we have to say: "Here we stand. We cannot do otherwise."

We participated in the international campaign relating to the excommunication of Fr. Tissa Balasuriya of Sri Lanka in the same sprit. Such involvement to hold religions accountable for their human rights record is unavoidable if human rights are to become a reality and not just something to which we pay lip service.

Fourth Open Letter to Jesuit Superior: How to Correct Wrong in a Good Way

June 22, 2001

This is my fourth open letter to you. Your silence is no deterrence to us, though your words may have made matters easier. In this letter, we question the manner in which the leaders of the Jesuit order have dealt with this issue.

The facts [of the case] have never been denied despite the enormous publicity these facts have received. There is no way to deny these either as incidents are well-known and have been well-recorded from the beginning.

What did the superiors of the Jesuit order do regarding these complaints? Did they ask for an explanation from the culprits who happened to be superiors of the Kerala Province of Jesuits? Did they inquire into the matter? Did they take any action?

If there was any such reaction, they would have called the complainant, Fr. Pallath. This though has not happened. Consequently, there is no other conclusion we can draw except that Jesuit leaders are ignoring these valid complaints.

The next question then is, On what ethical, moral or religious base has a decision been made to ignore the complaints? Is it that the higher ranks of the Jesuit order are not bound by any moral or ethical code? If so, is discipline then a matter for the lower ranks only? Is it also that the highest superiors in the Jesuit order are bound to protect their provincial superiors irrespective of whatever wrong they have done, or is it that there is complicity on both sides in which higher superiors and provincial ones require that each must defend the other? Is this what Ignatius Loyola, the founder, meant by the military style of the organisation?

However, in the secular world, such a military style is no longer permitted. If a top officer learns of acts that his provincial delegate has done-for example, like those narrated above-it is his legal duty to act and correct the wrong. If he does not, he himself becomes liable before the law and can be punished. Of course, there are still many countries where primitive Idi Amin-like practices continue, but these contradict international laws relating to these matters.

Even the secular world accepts the ideal that no one can violate human rights and that those who do violate these rights must be held accountable. Thus, there is now a good model that the religious leaders also must support rather than contradict.

In the case of Fr. Pallath, the first good act would have been to provide for the physical well-being of the colleague who had worked for the order and who was sent out without even a cent with which to continue his life. This horrible neglect must be corrected. Other allegations of physical assaults and fabricated cases must be dealt with as well. That is what any good organisation, including the State, is expected to do to be considered good by modern standards. This too is the path to reconciliation. It is human to do wrong, and it is possible for the human to correct the wrongs by open admission of what went wrong. The South African Truth Commission has taught the world about morality that combines justice and mercy. Do not all of these considerations apply to the Jesuit order?