Charlie Hebdo – Bishops react

Like almost every public authority figure, the Dutch bishops have also released an official response to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in paris, two days ago. It is a perfunctory statement, short and quite standard:

Logo Bisschoppenconferentie“The Dutch Bishops’ Conference is shocked and stunned by the reports about the violent attack on the offices of a magazine in Paris, in which twelve people were killed.

The bishops strongly reject the use of any form of violence to impose opinions or religious convictions. They also reject any form of violence aimed at denying people their right to express their own opinions.

The bishops’ sympathies go to the relatives of the deceased victims and also to the injured and their families. “We pray for consolation for them, but also for wisdom for the French authorities in approaching violence because of religious and philosophical opinions.

Furthermore, the bishops’ conference fully endorses Pope Francis’ reaction to the attack.”

More interesting are the reactions of individual bishops.

Bishop Jos Punt, of Haarlem-Amsterdam, sent an open letter to the editors of the major Dutch newspapers and, in extension, to all who work in the free press. In it, he writes:

kn_705396_punt“My thoughts are with your colleagues who have died and with their families, relatives and friends. But my thoughts are also with you and all your coworkers, who are used to be able to bring world news in freedom and rightly consider this a great good in the democratic principles we all cherish. That freedom is now again challenged and that makes you feel unsafe.

As bishop of the Diocese of Haarlem-Amsterdam I know that religions and their spiritual leaders, but also ministers, politicians and many others in public office or functions are sometimes targets for satire. That can go very far and cause protests.

But in the context of freedom of speech it must be possible to do so respectfully and must never lead to brutal murder, like yesterday in Paris.”

Bishop Punt also underlines the importance of dialogue between religions with mutual respect and good will, to foster peace and harmony in the world, and reminded that the forces of good are always stronger than the forces of evil. He closes his letter as follows:

“I wish you and your coworkers much wisdom and courage in the decisions you have to make now, perhaps forced by circumstances, in bringing news. But now you are supported by many who have shown their horror at this attack and sympathise strongly with you.”

mgr_hendriks2014_200Bishop Jan Hendriks, auxiliary bishop of the same diocese, shares the letter as well, and adds:

“The terrorist action which happened in Paris must be strongly condemned by every sane person. I hope that this will not lead to further violence, but to more attention for the importance of an honest and open dialogue to achieve peace and reconciliation.”

Bishop Gerard de Korte, of Groningen-Leeuwarden, gives advice on how to respond to the attack and its aftermath.

korte“The time for naivety is over. A small number of fanatics can seriously disrupt our society. Our governments have the task of eliminiating terrorists as much as possible before they can strike. But guaranteeing one hundred percent security is of course an illusion.

I think it is sensible to keep our heads cool. It is completely counterproductive to outcry ourselves in anger and fear. Now we especially need a strong and controlled reaction by society. Hysterics and blind hatred towards Muslims must now be avoided. Even in hectic times it is important to keep finding nuances. Citizens in our pluralistic society must seek out that which connects. As creatures of God we people belong fundamentally together, after all.

Bishop de Korte also warns that as Christians we must avoid taking the moral high ground in this matter:

“As Christians we should be humble.  For centuries Christians despised, hated and killed others. After the conversion of Emperor Constantine in the early fourth century, Christians have often wanted to violently enforce their vision of the truth. As far as I can see, we have left that unholy way only fairly recently. For our Church the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) also led to a breakthrough on this point. It’s no longer the right of the truth that is in the centre, but the dignity of every human. Christ is the truth in person and every man has the duty to find this truth. But that is only possible in full freedom and without any coercion or violence. We can not make holy God an instrument for our violent actions.”

Published by

incaelo

I'm a 37-year-old lay Catholic from the diocese of Groningen-Leeuwarden. I write about the Catholic Church in the Netherlands. I not only enjoy bringing selected developments to the attention of readers, but I also think that it is sometimes important to allow a wider audience to read about the state of the Church in the Netherlands. That's why a fair number of posts about that topic will be translations of Dutch articles, episcopal writings and whatever else.

One thought on “Charlie Hebdo – Bishops react”

  1. Perhaps I am misinterpreting Bishop de Korte’s remarks, but as published by you they seem to be disputable at some points, or at least to stand in need of some elaboration. For example :

    (1) “For centuries Christians despised, hated and killed others. . . Christians have often wanted to violently enforce their vision of the truth. As far as I can see, we have left that unholy way only fairly recently”.

    The observation cannot be allowed to stand as expressed, not least because of the promiscuous jumbling of attitudes (“despised”), emotions (“hated”) actions (“killed” – the action most at issue at present) and desires (“wanted”), and because of the vague references “often” and “only fairly recently”. Is that last a reference to the wars of religion in the 16th and 17th centuries? If so, it may be “only fairly recently” in the context of the two Christian millennia, but readers of the bishop’s remarks are likely to assume he intended a reference closer to today.

    Contrast the cautious statement by St John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter “Tertio Millennio Adveniente” (1995). I cite: “. . acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of truth” (TMA, 35). The Council Fathers had been even more circumspect in the Declaration “Dignitatis Humanae” (1965): “In the life of the People of God, as it has made its pilgrim way through the vicissitudes of human history, there has at times appeared a way of acting that was hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel or even opposed to it.” (n.12). The observations of the International Theological Commission on the impropriety of making facile historical judgements can be studied in the text “Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past” (2000), sections 4 and 5.

    In addition, although the bishop speaks of “Christians” and not “the Church”, it is necessary to make explicit the distinction between what the Church has always taught, and the failure of Christians, at times, to live up to that teaching. See Dignitatis Humanae (1965) n.12: “The doctrine of the Church that no-one is to be coerced into faith has always stood firm”. That cries out to be affirmed at this juncture. It was by no means an innovation of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council.

    (2) “It’s no longer the right of the truth that is in the centre, but the dignity of every human. Christ is the truth in person and every man has the duty to find this truth. But that is only possible in full freedom and without any coercion or violence.”

    That is a reference to the Conciliar declaration Dignitatis Humanae (1965), but the suggestion that human dignity is “in the centre” obscures the fact that truth has always been and remains “in the centre”. Nor is it correct to assert the right to “full freedom” without more. The Declaration affirms freedom, but with a core proviso. What it says (with particular reference to those “who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it”) is that “the exercise of [the right to immunity from coercion in religion] is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.” (DH, n.2).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s