Four years later, the case against the bishop does not look as clear-cut

Bishop GijsenFour years ago, the commission charged with investigating accusations of sexual abuse against members of the clergy, decided that two such charges against the late Bishop Joannes Gijsen, ordinary of Roermond from 1972 to 1993, and of Reykjavik from 1996 to 2007, were plausible. As the bishop had died the year before, no legal action was possible against him. And that was for the better, it now turns out.

The local court of Gelderland judged this week that the commission had acted carelessly and broken basic legal regulations int he cases against Bishop Gijsen. The judge decided that the commission acted contrary to its own regulations, did not investigate the facts to a satisfactory extent and did not hear the defence. The court reproached the commission for accepting limited evidence: one charge against the bishop was deemed plausible simply because of the existence of a second unproven complaint.

The St. John foundation had charged the commission for unnecessary damaging the good name of clergy and other Church workers. Bishop Gijsen was one of the people they represented. The foundation considers the entire procedure followed by the commission in investigating charges of sexual abuse to be in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court thought otherwise and deemed this charge and others inadmissable, and thus offered no judgement on the guilt or innocence of Bishop Gijsen. But it did offer some stern words against the commission and their decisions, and so threw the conclusions of the last years into renewed doubt.


Like this post? Think of making a donation! 

 

Advertisements

Bishops refuse to stand up against Pope, and with good reason

Earlier this week, a group of 20 Dutch Catholics wrote a letter to the bishops of the Netherlands, asking them to take a position against the course on which Pope Francis is taking the Church. It made international headlines (such as on sensationalist LifeSiteNews).

The letter lists a number of cases which prove their point, although some are rather far-fetched (they seem to see the Holy See’s acknowledgment of the existence of people such as feminists, Protestant, Muslims and homosexuals (let alone meeting them) as tantamount to supporting their ideas and opinions). The majority of points are related to the Church’s teaching on sexuality and that footnote in Amoris laetitia. All of their points, the writers say, can be summarised under the headers of Modernism and Protestantism. In this papacy, they see a resurgence of 1960s ideas which were buried under previous Popes.

The letters asks three things from the bishops, that they express themselves:

  1. In favour of an integral upholding of Humanae vitae;
  2. In favour of teaching and practice regarding reception of Holy Communion by validly married people in a new relationship;
  3. In favour of upholding the moral teachings regarding homosexual relationships;
  4. In favour of upholding the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, following the example of Vatican II (Lumen Gentium); especially in favour of upholding the teachings regarding the supremacy of God’s Law above the subjective conscience.

They also ask the bishops to join the request for clarification, the dubia, presented by Cardinals Brandmüller, Burke, Caffarra and Meisner.

The signatories of the petition feel supported by comments made in recent months and years by Cardinal Wim Eijk, who has repeatedly argued that Pope Francis should clear up the confusion caused by different interpretations of Amoris laetitia.

The four points mentioned above are misleading in that they assume that the bishops are currently not upholding these teachings. As current Church teaching stands, the bishops are upholding it, and while it is true that other bishops’ conferences are interpreting papal documents and statements differently, that does not change anything about the doctrine regarding human sexuality, reception of the sacraments and the relationships with people of other faiths.

Via their spokesperson, the Dutch bishops responded as follows:

“This week, the bishops have sent a joint response to the signatories of the petition.

The bishops let it be known that, while the issues addressed are important, they will speak about them directly with the Holy Father when they wish to do so, and not with the signatories of the petition.”

Of course, it was never very likely for the bishops to sign on to the dubia in any public way. Which is not to say that they automatically disagree with any of them. As mentioned above, Cardinal Eijk has rightly been critical about the different interpretations allowed by Amoris laetitia and the lack of any kind of clarification from the Pope. But, and I think they are right in this, the bishops seem to be of the opinion that no doctrine has changed since Pope Francis was elected, and they have acted accordingly, at least as a conference.

But the signatories of the petition write from a position which is not only highly critical of Pope Francis, but also from a world view which is wont to see conspiracies everywhere (with the traditional teachings of the Church as the main target of these conspiracies). This is a problem with a significant part of more conservative Catholic groups. They see enemies everywhere, and non-Catholics are especially suspect. This colours their views on ecumenism and relations with other faiths, as well as on people who do not live according to the ideals of the Church. So, while the petition is correct about the need for clarity, it presumes too much when it asks that the Church essentially stops talking to people with different outlooks (at least until they confess and convert). This negates the need for the bishops to agree to the petition, as they have already asserted that doctrine hasn’t changed, clarity is desirable in the case of Amoris laetitia, and cordial relations with non-Catholics are necessary and do not necessarily constitute any agreement with them.


Like this post? Think of making a donation! 

 

The Church grows, if slowly

baptismEaster is the time for Baptism, and every year, the Church rejoices in welcoming new faithful to her flock. Catholic weekly Katholiek Nieuwsblad asked the seven Dutch dioceses how many Baptisms they added to the books at Easter this year. The number: at least 147.

The standout diocese is Rotterdam, with 80 new Catholics. They are followed by Haarlem-Amsterdam with 48, Groningen-Leeuwarden with 13 and Breda with 6. The Archdiocese of Utrecht and the Dioceses of ‘s-Hertogenbosch and Roermond provided no exact numbers.

Like myself 11 years ago, the majority of new Catholics also received the sacraments of Confirmation and first Holy Communion. The number mentioned above does not, however, consist solely of newly baptised. Some people had aready been baptised in other church communities and now entered the Catholic Church.

For Belgium the number stands at 239, Kerknet reports. The numbers only refer to (young) adults becoming Catholic.

Flowers for the Vatican

Like every year, the flowers that will decorate St. Peter’s Square in Rome for Easter left the Netherlands. In the public flower garden Keukenhof Bishop Hans van den Hende sent them off with a blessing, saying:

“We pray and ask for blessing to thank God for creation, for growth and life, which we receive from God. And we ask God’s blessing for the journey, so that these flowers and plants, which have been the subject of so much work and expertise, may come to full bloom in St. Peter’s Square. At Easter we celebrate that Christ is risen. The colourful flowers, plants and trees emphasise that Easter is our most important feast, looking ahead to eternity with God.”

29542788_2008952229147513_6064714796125401819_n

Last year, the flowers were subject of several attacks by seagulls. While Bishop van den Hende recalled that gulls and flowers are part of the same creation, and assumed they would be able to settle things together, the Holy See and the Dutch florists seem less sure of that. The flowers will be protected by kites looking like birds of prey and – only when there is no one in the square – lasers. This is similar to methods used at airports to keep landing strips clear of birds.

Meanwhile, on the other side of St. Peter’s, other Dutch flowers are blooming in the Vatican gardens. The tulip bulbs were a gift from King Willem Alexander during his state visit last June, and these have now produced white tulips, Dutch ambassador to the Holy See, Prince Jaime de Bourbon de Parme, reports:

DZVAzJzWkAEEQ37
Photo credit: [1] St. Willibrord parish, [2] Prince Jaime

A bit of history as a second titular see appears in the Netherlands

At about the same time that the titular diocese of Maastricht was occupied again, another titular see in the Netherlands was established, it turns out. The list of changes to the Annuario Pontificio 2017, which collects the statistical information of the Church, published on 28 February, includes 10 newly established titular dioceses (one of which is occupied, by the newly appointed apostolic nuncio to Korea and Mongolia, Msgr. Alfed Xuereb). Among these ten is the titular diocese of Middelburg.

Today Middelburg is the capital of the province of Zeeland, in the southwest of the Netherlands, and is part of the territory of the Diocese of Breda. From 1559 to 1603, however, it was one of the new dioceses established in part as a response to the rise of Protestantism.

Super_Universas_Dioceses_NL (1)

^A map of what is now the Netherlands shows the new dioceses established in 1559. Middelburg is located to the southwest of its metropolitan, the Archdiocese of Utrecht.

In the 44 years of its existence, Middelburg had three bishops. The first was Nicolaas van der Borcht from 1561 until his death in 1573. He was succeeded by Jan van Strijen from 1581 until his death in 1594. The last bishop of Middelburg was Karel-Filips de Rodoan from 1600 to 1603. He was transferred to Bruges when Middelburg was suppressed. The last two of these were never able to reside in their diocese because of the ongoing war between the Dutch Protestants and Spanish Catholics. The Diocese of Middelburg, naturally, chose the Spanish side. When Bishop van der Borcht died of dysentery in 1573, Middelburg was one year into a siege and it fell in 1574. The Catholic clergy fled to Antwerp. Although Bishop van Strijen was appointed to Middelburg, he never visited his diocese and died in Louvain. Bishop de Rodoan’s appointment was a theoretical one, and although he was duly consecrated a bishop, but the archduke of the southern Netherlands quickly went to find another see for him, and this was found in Bruges.

Middelburg was officially suppressed in 1603, only to reappear in January of this year as a titular diocese. In theory, it can be granted to a non-resident bishop (an auxiliary bishop or a bishop working in the curia in Rome or in the diplomatic service of the Holy See), but there is no reason to expect this to happen anytime soon.  There are more than 1,900 titular dioceses (and that’s not counting the titular archdioceses), of which some 800 are currently vacant. Makes you wonder why the Holy See saw the need to create 10 more in the first place…

Image credit: A cropped version of the original made by Hans Erren for Wikipedia, found here.

An archbishop for Maastricht

While the actual diocese it is a part of remains vacant, the southern Dutch city of Maastricht had an archbishop appointed yesterday. Maastricht was among the first cities in what would later become the Netherlands to have a resident bishop, when it was established as a diocese in 530 (before that it had been a part of the Diocese of Tongres and Maastricht since the early 4th century). For almost two centuries it was the heart of the Catholic Church in the Limburg area, until it was suppressed in 720, its territory then falling under Liège. In 1971, Maastricht was re-established, but as a titular see, a diocese in name only, held by a bishop who was elsewhere active as an auxiliary bishop somewhere, in the Holy See diplomatic service or in the Roman Curia.

Ks_Sommertag_WSDNow, for the first time, the new titular bishop is an archbishop. He is the newly-appointed Apostolic Nuncio to Nicaragua, Msgr. Waldemar Stanislaw Sommertag. He is appointed after a six-year vacancy of the titular see. His predecessors were Marcos Pérez Caicedo (2006-2010), now the archbishop of Cuenca in Ecuador; Bishop Joannes Gijsen (1993-1996), who was the titular bishop of Maastricht after retiring from Roermond and before being appointed to Reykjavik; and Bishop Petrus Moors (1970-1980), who became the titular bishop upon retiring as bishop of Roermond (a practice since abolished: retiring bishops of a diocese are no longer appointed to a titular see, simply being styled the bishop emeritus of their erstwhile diocese).

Archbishop-elect Sommertag is 50 years old and was born in Wiecbork, Poland. A priest of the Diocese of Pelplin, he has been in the diplomatic service of the Holy See since 2000, having served in Tanzania, Nicaragua, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Israel, Palestine and Cyprus as well as in the Section for Relations with States of the Secretariat of State. As Apostolic Nuncio to Nicaragua he will naturally work in that middle-American country, and he is bishop of Maastricht in name only, without any rights or duties in our country.

The Diocese of Maastricht is usually traced back to St. Servatius, whose remains are still buried in the city. The first historical source referring to the diocese dates from 535. It is unknown how far the influence of the bishops of Maastricht reached, but the diocesan borders may have somewhat coincided with those of the later Diocese of Liège, which means that it stretched from the Luxembourg Ardennes to northwestern Brabant, amking it equal to the later Diocese of Utrecht in the northern Netherlands. The cathedral of the diocese was one of the two ancient churches that still stand in Maastricht: the basilica of St. Servatius and the basilica of Our Lady.

Photo credit: Krzysztof Mania/KFP

On Schiermonnikoog, the Cistercians have come home – for real, this time

Wonderful news from the Cistercian monks on Schiermonnikoog:

“We have found a home. Looking for a location to establish a monastery on Schiermonnikoog we came across the Rijsbergen inn, a centuries-old building on the edge of the village. We were shown around and were impressed. Of all the locations on the island the inn gradually presented itself as the place for us.

And so our years-long search for a monastery culminated in Rijsbergen inn, a wonderful opportunity with which we are very happy.

The inn will remain as such until 15 January 2019, after which we hope to move in quickly. Its name will simply by ‘Schiermonnikoog monastery’. After the building has been furnished, also with its own chapel, we hope to open our doors for candidate monks, guests seeking solitude in the guest house and visitors of our services.

We are very grateful for the success of our search, and we wish to thank everyone who has supported us in any way.

Brothers Alberic, Jelke, Paulus, Vincentius and Jos.”

DVmymnSWAAY85Zq

^Four of the monks in front of their future monastery

The Cistercian monks have been on the island for more than two years. Five of them have been living in a house not far from the site of their future monastery. Their original plan to build a new monastery in the dunes outside the village was abandoned after they found that it led to a debate among the villagers. They decided to completely rethink their future, with the caveat that they did not wish to leave Schiermonnikoog.

This morning they signed the contract for the sale of Rijsbergen, now a hotel with 17 rooms. It advertises itself as a homely and honest hotel, humbly admitting that their double rooms are not very big and that no room comes with a television – a conscious decision.

Rijsbergen was built in 1757 as the home of the Stachouwer family, who owned the island of Schiermonnikoog. In 1858 the family sold it to lawyer John Erick Banck from The Hague, who owned the island until 1892 (he initiated land reclamation works with room for seven new farms and establised the sailors’ school). The island and house then fell into the possession of the German noble family Von Bernstorff (one of the major hotels on the island still bears their name). Following the Second World War, Rijsbergen came into the possession of the Dutch state. The building was then used as a school and inn, and its upkeep was rather neglected. Remaining of the original building are the front and the main house’s rooftop. The building has been owned by its current owners since 1992.

Photo credit: Anne Christine Girardot