SUZETTE LEE SOW FONG, OCDS
7 rue des Rougets
Elizabethville
Baie du Tombeau
Republique de Maurice
E-mail: philnsuz@intnet.mu
June , 2009
Pere Fabien, OCD
Provincial de l’Ocean Indien
68, rue Josephe Bedier
B.P. 15
97450 Saint Louis
Ile de la Reunion
RE: Suzette Lee Sow Fong, OCDS
Grievance: Community name – location ( Republic of Mauritius OCDS Community)
Dear Fr. Provincial:
Enclosed with this packet is my grievance. It is my intent to initiate the following:
1. A Canonical Review process of the Fr. Assistant’s action/Council’s lack action removing me from the Community.
2. Proposed orders of remand and summary disposition.
3. Statement confirming my choice of Paula Belyea, OCDS, as my procurator representative (Agent).
4. Request at Province expense of the appointment of a Canon Lawyer as my advocate.
5. I will assume that failure to act within thirty (30) days will be your signal to me that
my grievance is denied, and since justice delayed is justice denied, at that time I will
pursue my appeal to the next juridical level.
Thank you, and respectfully yours,
Suzette Lee, OCDS
GRIEVANCE
June 1, 2009
FROM: Petitioner Suzette Lee, OCDS
TO: Pere Fabien, OCD
Provincial de l’Ocean Indien
68, rue Josephe Bedier
B.P. 15
97450 Saint Louis
Ile de la Reunion
Party Grievance taken from : Respondent Council of Mauritius OCDS Community
Action Grieved: Removal of Suzette Lee from Community
Summary of Grievance
The Council action is defective for both procedural and substantive errors.
Procedural Errors Assigned
1. The Council failed to act as a council in having member Suzette Lee removed from community and defacto dismissal from Carmel.
Correct action: The Council should have made a written record of its actions and the reason for such action. This record would have allowed grievant Suzette Lee an opportunity to address issues and preserve a record upon which any reviewing authority would then have in order to review for determining the propriety of any action or inaction taken.
Effect of Error: Suzette Lee (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) was denied reasonable notice and reasonable opportunity to be heard. Which action has harmed her reputation and good name and abrogated her rights guaranteed as a member of Christ’s Faithful.
2. The Council failed to comply with Article 7, Paragraph 47 (d).
Correct action: The Council should have only acted after consulting the Provincial and obtaining the approval of the Provincial in said action.
Effect of Error: Petitioner was denied the important protection of Fr. Provincial’s input, guaranteed under the law of the Church and thereby avoiding a supervening authority, the wisdom it brings and a cool head, distant from any dispute which failure resulted in Petitioner’s unjustified dismissal from a community and the support it brings and causing widespread division in Carmel and harm to Petitioners’ public reputation.
Therefore: The Council’s action was void ab initio for the reasons stated above.
3. The Council failed to act as a Council in giving over their authority to the Spiritual Assistant.
Correct action: The Council should have, if so desired, initially consulted the Spiritual Assistant for his input (see Article 44), then acted upon their own authority.
Effect of Error: Petitioner was denied the important protection of the whole Council’s input, guaranteed under OCDS Constitutions of the Order and the law of the Church and thereby avoiding a intervening dispute which failure resulted in Petitioner’s unjustified dismissal from a community and the support it brings and causing widespread division in Carmel and harm to Petitioners’ public reputation.
Therefore: Petitioner’s dismissal was void ab initio due to Council’s lack of action and the intervention of a non-authoritative third party.
Substantive Errors Assigned
4. The Council failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner Suzette Lee was engaged in any activity other than canonically protected Free Speech, which is a Fundamental right in the Catholic Church.
Correct action: Establish with clear and convincing evidence Petitioner Suzette Lee was engaged in any activity other than protected Free Speech.
Effect of Error: Petitioner Suzette Lee was harmed in her reputation and good name and had her fundamental rights abrogated which rights are guaranteed to all members of Christ’s Faithful.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT
Petitioner has an absolute and fundamental right to voice an opinion without fear of punishment. The scope of this right extends to sharing her views with others in and outside the Catholic Church. Petitioner also has not only a right, but an obligation pursuant to her baptismal promise to engage in the Apostolate. These rights and obligations originating in natural law, divine law and canon law, are not diminished, impaired, limited or restricted merely upon entrance into the Carmelite Order as a Secular OCDS. In fact the Carmelite order is expressly charged by the greater Church in the Friars own constitutions and applicable universal ecclesial legislation to assist Suzette in her efforts to perform obligations arising from such freedoms.
Exhibit A – L attached is Petitioner’s proposed record of events.
Exhibit M attached is Petitioner’s proposed Legal support, which includes copies of annotated canons 208 – 223 (the obligations and rights of Christ’s Faithful) and 224 – 231 (the obligations and Rights of the Lay members of Christ’s Faithful) which law petitioner submit is controlling.
CONCLUSION
It is respectfully suggested that any reviewing authority can rule on this matter in favor of Petitioner reinstating her merely by pointing out that the Council has failed to carry it’s heavy burden requiring it to comply with longstanding canonical procedures to establish clearly and convincingly that proper procedures were followed and the scope of activity the council engaged in was indeed within the proper scope of any OCDS Council.
Wherefore: Petitioner requests:
1. Appointment of a Canonical Advocate at Province expense to perfect her grievance;
2. Vacating action of the Mauritius OCDS President and Spiritual Assistant/Provincial Delegate ratifying the action of others which essentially removed Petitioner from normal community contact and placed in jeopardy her vocation and further reinstatement nun pro tunct, with an explanation to the OCDS community that it is as if Petitioner was never removed from said Community;
3. Speedy trial since time is of the essence and damage to petitioner’s reputation grows with each passing day;
4. Petitioner further requests that an in-service day be held requiring mandatory continuing formation by all friars of the province or juridical equivalent of a province in and among those friars responsible for governance in Mauritius and all OCDS councils on the Topic of the Canonical Authority cited above;
5. For further relief consistent with Law and Equity;
Respectfully Submitted,
Suzette Lee ocds
Enclosures
EXHIBIT A
My name is Suzette Lee. I am a Secular of the Discalced Carmelite Order in Mauritius. I made my definitive promises in 1992; was President of my community for 6 years (1994-2000) and Councilor on the community councils since the first president until the last election on May 20, 2007.
In the year 2000, during my Presidency, I authored, with the approval of the then Council, a Rosary booklet, “Anou Priye Rozer” in the local language (Creole – the written form of which has been approved by the Diocese of Port Louis). I invited members of my Community to collaborate in this work by sending meditations of Carmelite Saints appropriate for each of the 15 mysteries of the Rosary ( Exhibit B ) and they responded. It was to be used for a project “Evangelisation and Development” and offered as an apostolate (optional) for members of my Carmelite community and the faithful at large. The Bishop of the Diocese of Port Louis, Mauritius, Mgr. Maurice Piat, gave his imprimatur for the booklet. He also approved and gave his encouragement for the project. ( Exhibit C ).
During the council term following my last presidency, the then current President refused the apostolate of the rosary booklet, although when she spoke at the 2000 OCDS Congress in Mexico, the project was mentioned in her talk ( Exhibit D).
I received a letter dated June 9, 2007 ( Exhibit E) signed by the President and Fr. Tizano, OCD, Spiritual Assistant of my community telling me to stay away from the community “for one year or more if need be because [I] have hurt members by [my] harsh and aggressive words.” The decision for this action was made by the President, the Spiritual Assistant and a Carmelite Nun (the Carmelite sister has assisted our community since its inception). I protested this action with two letters ( Exhibits F and G) to Fr. Tizano stating I did not agree with the action taken, especially since procedure was not followed and no proper warning was given.
One year and five months later I was asked to meet with the Council and the new Spiritual Assistant, Fr. Augustin, OCD (the latter Assistant resigned). At this meeting Fr. Augustin prolonged my sanction indefinitely. I protested again by letter ( Exhibit H) dated November 19, 2008.
I received in reply an e-mail letter ( Exhibit I) dated December 15, 2008 from the President offering excuses in the name of the Community for all that has been said regarding the Rosary Booklet and all that had involuntarily hurt me. I was requested to meet with Fr. Augustin in order to find reconciliation and to reintegrate into the community. The same was to be requested of the community.
I replied to the above email on December 20, 2008 ( Exhibit J) offering my apologies, but stated that the President’s 12/15/2008 communication was received too late as I had already written to the Bishop ( Exhibit K) and referred the case to the Provincial ( Exhibit L). I was prompted to write to the Bishop after his communication dated October 1 2008 on “The Creole Cause” in which he refers to the creole culture saying, that there is a sort of devaluation, not to say, contempt of the creole culture, and I wanted to show that it is so in our Community because the booklet “Anou Priye Rozer” even if it was out of press since October 2001 was never officially launched.
On January 15, 2009, I meet with Fr. Augustin, as requested, who was very angry that I had written to the Bishop and Provincial.. Fr. Augustin dismisses me from the community verbally stating “I dismiss you from the Community and will not go back on my decision”. I never receive any written document from my council showing my dismissal.
On January 17, 2009 I send a letter to Fr. Augustin ( Exhibit M) requesting him to review his 1/15/2009 decision in light of the OCDS Constitutions, Art. 47e and ensuing footnotes 308 and 316 of Canon Law, and Fr. A. Deeney, General Delegate to OCDS’s, article on “Expulsions”.
On January 18, 2009, Fr. Augustin announces to community I am no longer a member.
On January 20, 2009 I write to Fr. Provinical ( Exhibit N) requesting his intervention in his delegate’s decision. No reply is ever received.
On January 21, 2009 I write to the Council ( Exhibit O) asking them for a final decision. No reply is received.
On February 27, 2009, I write a letter of appeal to the Provincial ( Exhibit P). No reply received.
Suzette Lee OCDS