--- In MORM@..., "John Kunnathu" <johnkunnathu@...>
wrote:
>
> On every New Year day, the new office bearers take charge of the
> administration of our parishes in the American Diocese. This is an
> excellent and exemplary system.
>
> We elect new people every year to hand over the administration of
> our parish. This means that the ultimate power rests on the
people.
> This is a democratic system, which is the rule of the people, by
the
> people, and for the people. This system gives us, the people, the
> power to vote for the office-bearers that we want. Only those
people
> who prove responsible to the community usually get elected in a
> democratic system. If someone proves irresponsible, people can
vote
> him/her out of the office.
>
> In contrast to democracy is dictatorship. Where a dictator rules,
> people have no power. People are not given the choice to vote for
a
> dictator. A dictator rules as he/she wants whether the people want
> him/her or not. Dictatorship was how the whole world was ruled
until
> recently. Even today dictatorship is practiced in several nations
in
> the world where a person or a group of people rule a nation
without
> the consent of the people. Where there is dictatorship, people are
> denied freedom, and they are in slavery.
>
> Hence, what we do in our parishes every New Year day is an
excellent
> and exemplary practice.
>
> But this is only one side of the picture. There is another side of
> the picture of our parishes in this diocese that we can't feel
very
> proud of. For each parish, we elect a new trustee, a new
secretary,
> and the new committee members every year, but the chief
> administrator stays in power without any change at all. A vicar is
> the chief administrator of a parish, and the vicars stay with the
> same parish all life long in American Diocese.
>
> People have no power regarding the vicar, the chief administrator.
> He cannot be voted in or out of the office by the people. A vicar
is
> appointed by the bishop. In American diocese, vicars are not
> transferred at all. Once appointed, he stays as its vicar until
his
> death. This system makes the vicar a dictator. As long as the
chief
> administrator stays in power indefinitely as a dictator, the
> democratic set up for the rest of the people in the administration
> is not of much value. Thus the administrative set up we have in
our
> diocese now is a dictatorship, which puts us in slavery.
>
> Each parish works independently as a kingdom in itself. In the
> absence of any clergy transfer or any centralized salary system,
the
> existence of a diocese seems meaningless. Even if this diocese
> ceases its function, nothing significant will happen; all these
> parishes and their kings will continue here without any diocesan
set
> up. There are talks about splitting this diocese into two. I am
> skeptical about its advantage. The present one doesn't serve any
> purpose at all; then why do we need two of them?
>
> It is time now to sit down and think if this is what we want. Why
do
> we sacrifice our God-given freedom to some dictators?
>
Dear Moderators,

The term "Chief Administrator" is not applied for a vicar in any
records of our church. They are the representatives of the Bhishop,
shepherds and servants, Biblically and Ecclesiastically.The
phrasiology,"Chief Administrator" underlines an irrilant
nomenclature to the office of a vicar.

"People have no power regarding the vicar. He cannot be voted in or
out of office". Yes, this is as per the constitution of the church
and nothing special in American Dioces.He is the president of the
Managing Commitee by being the vicar, not voted in, and therefore
canot be voted out. People can represent the individual issues to
the Bhisops.

Clergy transfer and centralised salary system is welcomed,if it
could be implimented effectively on sound footing, considering the
various aspects involved in it. But that will not make the people
the masters and clergy the slave, as reads in between lines of the
article under reply, and it should not happen too. The usage of the
terms, "dictater" and "dictatership" freely used in the article
shows the misuse of the freedom the author enjoys.

Regarding spliting the docese, it will only help the growth and
efficiency of the divided units and its parishes.

Yesudasan Nedumoncave
Philadelphia