Vanxim: Where is the tolerance of the Church

This first appeared in The Goan Everyday 3 Jan 2016 in response to a press release by the Church in Goa

I have been called mischievous over the years but never malicious. There is always a first time. The Catholic church has decided to label all those who asked questions on the Vanxim land sale as malicious and mischievous. Manohar Parrikar calls all those who question his pet projects as anti development, name calling seems to be a general pastime. The general tone of the unsigned press release is condescending at best but more importantly seems to suggest that it is the final word to nosey or noisy laity. Where is the “tolerance” the Archbishop spoke of the other day when addressing our netas during his annual Christmas address. Is the sermon only for our Netas and not for the clergy?

Wonder why the Archbishop uses the Diocesan Centre for Social Communications Media when people directly involved in these matters are the Financial Administrator and Secretary of the Section of Confraternities and Fabricas who should answer the queries of the people. Should not the statement should come from their respective offices?

The press release is a little different from the information posted on the Archbishop's website, it gives more insight but as usual not enough. The details of the Mamlatdar's order were not mentioned earlier. It means that because the Church felt their land would go to tenants at a cheap price of Rs 0.36/sqm they preferred to transfer their rights to others who could squeeze out a better deal. If aggrieved why was a legal challenge not mounted directly. Yet the same social justice ministry is up in arms pushing for Baina squatters to be accommodated. Surely by endorsing such positions the social justice ministry loses its moral right to

In the website, the land was sold to Gaunakar, in the press release he is referred to as “one Gaunekar” someone unknown. Really. Did the committee that chewed on his offer not consider for one moment, how an offer exactly equal to the one suggested by the valuer was received. Valuation is based on many factors, one being last sale deed of the piece of land nearby and only on the official declared price. Most land deals have a cash component. The church cannot take cash so the cheque portion should increase. No one sells their land at the price it is valued by valuers unless it it is a distress sale. The value is taken as a reference point. Every seller will attempt to get more. The simplest mechanism available was an auction. Maybe that was not feasible as secrecy was key.

The stated reason for the sale was because the Santa Monica Fund which owned the land needed funds for the ever growing maintenance needs of the Santa Monica Convent One of the worst reasons to sell land. Surely today the monastery requires funds for repairs which lands will be sold, how will the repairs be funded? Did the finance committee not think of this future requirement? Who are the worthies that make up this committee, are they financial or spiritual gurus? If the mega retreat center could be funded by donations of the faithful, so could Santa Monica be repaired by donations without selling land.