Articles

Fire Frightening Franco: A corollary to Somebody Raped Nobody

Opinion | Articles | Chhotebhai | 15-Feb-2022

In my previous article I dwelt more on the judicial aspects of the judgement in the Franco Mulakkal rape case. The present one is based on the petition that I have submitted to Abp Anil Couto, the Metropolitan Archbishop of the Delhi ecclesiastical region. This is because Bp Franco Mulakkal of Jalandhar diocese is his suffragan bishops. As per provisions of Article 8:1 of Pope Francis’ Motu Proprio “Vos Estis Lux Mundi” (VELM) dated 1/6/2019 a complaint against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue (sexual acts) by a bishop of the Latin Rite is to be submitted to the Metropolitan as also the Holy See.

 The Case: It is common knowledge that a former Superior General of a diocesan congregation under Jalandhar diocese had accused Franco of multiple rapes between 2014 -16. The judgement in the case was delivered recently by a court in Kerala, were the alleged crimes occurred. It acquitted Franco of all criminal charges. Several legal luminaries who have studied the judgement have described it as being seriously flawed; hence it is likely to be appealed in the High Court very shortly.

 When it earlier became public that the charges were serious Franco was asked to step aside and Bp Agnelo Gracias was appointed as the Apostolic Administrator. However, Franco continues to reside in regal splendour in Jalandhar and seems to have access to unlimited funds that he has used to hire the most expensive lawyers for his defence. To that extent he has succeeded.

 The judgement: The judge has rejected the charges on the grounds that

1. The victim used the term “sharing a bed” and not “rape” per se
2. Initially she had not claimed penile penetration
3. There was a delay, as also some inconsistencies in her complaint.

 I have addressed these points in my aforementioned article. The appellate court will now decide on the criminality of the case. But it is for the ecclesiastical authorities to adjudicate on the morality of the matter.

 Provision of Canon Law: While the Indian Penal Code is very clear that consent cannot be presumed in a fiduciary relationship as existed between the nun victim and the accused bishop; Canon Law, that now concerns us, is even more explicit. The Revised Book VI of the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope Francis on 1/6/2021 with the title “Pascite gregem Dei” states:

• In the case of the victim no penal action may be taken against those who “acted under physical force, or under the impetus of a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee, or if foreseen could not avoid” (Can 1323:3). This aptly describes the fiduciary relationship that existed between the victim and the aggressor.
• The same would apply if the victim “acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience” (Can 1323:4).
• A judge must inflict a more serious punishment when “A person who is established in some position of dignity, or who, in order to commit a crime, has abused a position of authority or an office” (Can 1326:2).
• A competent authority “can also impose the expiatory penalties it considers necessary to restore justice or repair scandal” (Can 1335:1).
• A person who “abuses ecclesiastical power, office or function, is to be punished according to the gravity of the act or the omission, not excluding by deprivation of power or office” (Can 1378:1).
• “A cleric who continues in some other external sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue which causes scandal is to be punished with suspension. To this other penalties can be progressively added if after a warning he persists in this offence, until eventually he can be dismissed from the clerical state” (Can 1395:1).

 The above references in the revised Code of Canon Law pertaining to sexual acts by ecclesiastical authorities are crystal clear. Such persons must be punished and dismissed. Whether or not an appellate court determines criminality in the repeated sexual acts between the victim and the aggressor, what remains undisputed is that such acts did take place. Bearing in mind the fiduciary relationship, consent cannot be presumed. Assuming, without admitting, that the sexual acts were consensual, even then they go against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, are grievously scandalous in nature, and therefore attract the penal provisions of Canon Law quoted herein above.

 CHURCH GUIDELINES: Let us also refer to the letter No Prot. N. 2019 1193 dt 24/10/2019 from Cardinal Beniamino Stella, Prefect, Congregatio Pro Clericis addressed to Abp Filipe Neri Ferrao, President of the CCBI (Latin Rite). He states that “On 30/1/2009 Pope Benedict XVI had granted three Special Faculties to the Congregation for cases of dismissal from the clerical state through an Administrative Process, not a judicial process. The First Special Faculty is for sins and delicts against the Sixth Commandment – for example attempting marriage or concubinage”. Surely Franco’s repeated sexual predations fall in this category and merit dismissal through an Administrative Process alone.

 I now revert to the Motu Proprio on sexual abuse by clerics (VELM). I quote:

 * The crimes of sexual abuse offend the Lord, cause physical, psychological and spiritual damage to the victims and harm the community of the faithful (Preamble).

* It applies to “delicts against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue consisting of: forcing someone, by violence or threat or through abuse of authority, to perform or submit to sexual acts” (Art 1:i), and “performing sexual acts with a minor or vulnerable person” (Art 1:ii).

* “Vulnerable person means any person in a state of … deprivation of personal liberty which, in fact, even occasionally, limits the ability to understand or to want to otherwise resist the offence” (Art 2:6).

* The ecclesiastical authorities shall commit themselves to ensuring that those who state that they have been harmed, together with their families, are to be treated with dignity and respect” (Art 5:1).

 From the above it is abundantly clear that, as Pope Francis has often asserted, the Church must have zero tolerance of sexual abuse, especially by persons in a fiduciary relationship. It simultaneously calls for protection of the victims. I receive six Catholic daily news bulletins and various journals. Nowhere have I read about the Church taking pro-active steps to repair harm and scandal, and to provide dignity and protection to the victim, her family and community of supporters. To the contrary, there is a concerted attempt to re-crucify the victim nun. I see this as a gross failure, robbing the Church of its credibility. It calls for immediate pro-active measures.

 MISUSE OF DIOCESAN FUNDS: From the way that Franco has been spending money for top lawyers, 5 star accommodation etc, it is glaringly obvious that he is dipping into funds that are not personally his. One may recall how in March 2019, when the Model Code of Conduct for Elections was in force, a priest of Jalandhar diocese, Rev Madassery, admitted to cash transactions of Rupees Thirty Crores (Three Hundred Million) from various commercial activities. What is even more shocking is that Bp Agnelo Gracias, the Apostolic Administrator, justified this huge cache of cash. He issued an “Important Clarification” in April 2019 where he unequivocally stated that this “commercial activity” was approved by the diocese, thereby seeking to legitimise a patently illegal act. All this lends credence to the belief that Franco is flush with funds, and is using community assets for his personal defence. This must stop forthwith.

 INDIAN PRECEDENTS: To my knowledge the first case of action against a bishop for sexual misdemeanours was that of Bp William Gomes of Poona (now Pune), for fathering a child from his mistress. He was “honourably discharged” and packed off to America! Hardly a punishment.

A more recent instance is that of Bp Isidore Fernandes of Allahabad in 2012/13. Here it was a matter of ecclesiastical indiscipline; in that he had participated in the consecration of a Protestant bishop. It was neither a crime, nor an immoral act. Yet stringent action was taken against him. He was removed from the episcopacy and even debarred from public celebration of any of the sacraments, including the Holy Eucharist. He had to seek refuge in a neighbouring diocese where his uncle was the bishop. The “punishment’ seemed to be grossly disproportionate to the “offence”.

The third instance is of Bp Gallela Prasad of Cuddapah diocese. Facing grave charges of concubinage and financial misappropriation, he was removed from episcopal office. He now resides in a school in Tamilnadu, and not in his parent diocese. This action was taken even before any judicial pronouncement. Bearing in mind the above precedences one wonders why the Church has soft pedalled on the Franco case?    

 EXPECTATION FROM CHURCH AUTHORITIES:

In the light of incontrovertible Church teachings, the credibility crisis in the Church and the enduring scandal that the inaction is causing, it is expected that the church authorities will act as prayed:

1. That Franco Mulakkal be removed from episcopal office and the clerical state.
2. That he be immediately removed from the territorial jurisdiction of Jalandhar diocese.
3. That he may not be allowed access to diocesan funds, or that of its institutions/ commercial enterprises for fighting his personal legal battles.
4. That he be directed to reimburse to the diocese whatever funds he may have already taken for fighting his personal legal battles.

This letter was written to the Metropolitan and officials in the Vatican and India out of my love for the Holy Catholic Church and is without prejudice to anybody. Let us hope and pray that appropriate action will be taken before it is too late and the wound festers even more.

 (The writer is the Convenor of the Indian Catholic Forum. Views expressed are personal)

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

---

Visitor comments

---

Leave a comment