Intervention 2 – Bishop Van Looy’s pedagogy of the prodigal son’s merciful father

On Saturday, Bishop Luc Van Looy gave his second intervention at the Synod, a short one based on the Parable of the Prodigal Son. In it, he claims that the father, in his mercy, does not close any doors in order to reunite his family. It is clear this may be read as a suggestion that the Church is likewise open to everyone. The bishop underlines that both sons in the parable are sinners, opposed to one another, but mercy brings them together. A start towards conversion, perhaps?

^The Belgian bishops at the Synod: Bishop Johan Bonny, Cardinal Godfried Danneels and Bishop Luc Van Looy

The original Dutch text is available here. My translation follows below:

“A father had two sons. One requested his part of the inheritance and left the house. The other refused to acknowledge his brother as his brother when he came back. The father was faced with a dilemma. He had to choose and he chose to hold a welcome feast for the sinner, for mercy and complete integration of the prodigal son. At the same time he invited the other son at the family table.

Dear brother bishops, today we read Scripture differently, just like we also see the signs of the times differently today. The reason is that we live in different contexts and also that every historical context is different. But we still want everyone to sit at one table.

As shepherd and bishop I want everyone to be able to be together. That is why a call for a pedagogical approach to the reality occupying us now. I do not choose a diplomatic compromise or the desire to convince anyone else of my interpretation. Not so much a theological or a sociological approach, but a pedagogical approach of a father who loves his two sons equally and forgives them both. His mercy can convince them to sit at the same table. He hosted a great feast because they were both lost and had come back.

A pedagogy is always incarnate and concrete. It answers concrete questions. We must be wise enough to lose neither one or the other. The Gospel supplies us with a fundamental vision while the application allows different emphases. The oldest son has a different view on family life and authority. Yet he and his younger brother were both welcome at their father’s table. The father remains at the centre. He know how to handle both. They were sinners, each in there own way. In his great mercy the father knows how the reunity his family. He does not close a single door, on the contrary: he engages himself to keep the door open for both. A good educator does not close a single door.

+ Luc Van Looy”

Advertisement

Closing the book on the Cardinals’ Letter

The letter of a number of cardinals to Pope Francis, which I wrote about yesterday, was a private piece of correspondence that was never meant to be made public, and the version that was made public is clearly not accurate. I have already added notes to treat all reporting about the letter with extreme care, but today’s statement from Fr. Lombardi should be enough to end speculation.

“As we are aware, at least four of the Synod Fathers who were included in the list of signatories have denied their involvement (Cardinals Angelo Scola, Andre Vingt-Trois, Mauro Piacenza and Peter Erdo). [Add Wilfrid Napier and Norberto Rivera Carrera to that list]

Cardinal Pell has declared that a letter sent to the Pope was confidential and should have remained as such, and that neither the text published nor the signatories correspond to what was sent to the Pope.

I would add that, in terms of content, the difficulties included in the letter were mentioned on Monday evening in the Synod Hall, as I have previously said, although not covered extensively or in detail.

As we know, the General Secretary and the Pope responded clearly the following morning. Therefore, to provide this text and this list of signatories some days later constitutes a disruption that was not intended by the signatories (at least by the most authoritative). Therefore it would be inappropriate to allow it to have any influence.

That observations can be made regarding the methodology of the Synod is neither new nor surprising. However, once agreed upon, a commitment is made to put it into practice in the best way possible.

This is what is taking place. There is very extensive collaboration in the task of allowing the Synod to make good progress on its path. It may be observed that some of the “signatories” are elected Moderators of the Circuli Minori, and have been working intensively. The overall climate of the Assembly is without doubt positive.

Cardinal Napier has expressly asked me to clarify the comments published in an interview with “Crux”, which do not correspond to his opinion. With regard to the composition of the “Commission of the 10” for the final text, it was incorrectly written that “… Napier said, adding that he would actually challenge ‘Pope Francis’ right to choose that’”. Cardinal Napier has requested that this be corrected, affirming the exact opposite: “… no-one challenges Pope Francis’ right to choose that”.

I have no further observations to make.”

Many have been spouting conspiracy theories left and right, but it is my opinion (and policy on this blog) not to participate in that sort of thing. Discussion is necessary, both in the Synod and outside it, but it must be factual and about the topic at hand, not coloured by our own ideas of what does or does not happen behind the scenes, and certainly not about the people. We may disagree with ideas and thoughts, but is it really constructive or useful to then denounce those who came up with them as reactionaries, schismatics or even heretics? I hope that I don’t need to explain that the answer is no

In many reactions yesterday and today, it is clear that more than a few commentators still operate under an idea of Pope Francis. Under that idea, anyone seeming to disagree with the Pope, anyone emphasising the importance and unchangeability of doctrine for example, is attacking the Holy Father. That is nonsense, of course. The letter, if it exists in the form that was published yesterday, is not an attack or sign of opposition: it is the sharing of concerns and the asking of questions, which is and entirely valid and necessary part of any deliberation, meeting or, yes, Synod. It is not a rebellion or attack.