Emotion vs. reason

“We only know rights, we’ve forgotten our duties.” Word from Fr. Antoine Bodar in an interview about the protests that disturbed Mass in ‘s-Hertogenbosch last Sunday. His words resound with me and some thoughts I’ve been having when I wonder, in my own pseudo-psychological way, about how the current situation came about. Why does a fairly simple disagreement result in a situation which is essentially criminal?

There are a few factors to this, but what strikes me most is the highly emotional response from, in this case, homosexual rights supporters. An emotional response to something which seems to affect someone so personally is only natural and therefore very understandable. It is in many ways instinctual: we feel threatened so we lash out in defense. We do it when we are afraid, angry, insulted, but also when we’re happy – impulsive actions in the rush of the moment.

But as civilised and reasonable developed people, we may pride ourselves on the fact that we are not governed by instincts alone. At some point, in order to reach at the very least a certain level of understanding (not even agreement yet), we must transcend the purely emotional and enter into a reasoned and objective debate about the issue in question.

In our modern society, where the only certainty is that there are no certainties, an emotional response is encouraged. A subjective attitude towards reality is very compatible with emotion, after all. But the second step towards the objective and reasoned debate, is no longer made by the public at large. Emotion has now become the final stop, even the ‘objective’ approach. I saw it personally on Sunday and we may all read it in the various media that report on the situation in the diocese of ‘s-Hertogenbosch.

Today I read from a pro-homosexual rights source that the diocese had come about and now allows homosexuals to receive Communion. An objective listener would have known that the diocese has said that throughout this crisis. Nothing has changed, but the latest statements only seem new because it had not managed to reach the ears of the protesters before. The blindness of subjective emotion blocked it.

In many ways this is a regression towards immaturity. As children we learn to transcend the emotional response and find solutions through objective approaches. As adults we know to curtail our emotions when necessary in order to not worsen a given problematic situation. But in modern society, which teaches that we all have our own reality, that there are no certainties but our own, often no longer knows how to transcend the emotion. After all, if I feel something, the reasoning goes, it is my own valid reality. The emotional becomes the objective approach for many.

The Church teaches that there is an objective Truth, independent from our emotions. It transcends us, so in order to know and understand It, we must in turn transcend our emotions. to come closer to the Truth that is Jesus Christ. We shouldn’t ignore our emotions by any means, but we must give them their proper place. That is ultimately the way to reach understanding and, perhaps, acceptance.

Stats for February 2010

The second month of my blogging here saw a small decrease in viewers, but that was not unexpected. After all, Father Tim and other influential bloggers did not link to me this time around. In total 3,096 views were registered, which is a good number. Certainly more than I had expected two months ago.

Four topics drew lots of viewers: Medjugorje, same-sex marriage, euthanasia and Communion & homosexuality. The latter three are the stereotypical topics that the secular world always connects to the Church and the blog stats meter could tell.

Below is the top ten of best-viewed posts. I am very happy to see some of my translations making it in there.

1: Het Probleem Medjugorje: 121
2: The problems of choosing death: 94
3: Some thoughts on same-sex marriage: 84
4: STS-130: The Rise of the Cupola: 72
5: Boodschap voor de Vastentijd 2010: 71
6: ”I did not want this disturbance” – Fr. Luc Buyens’ homily: 68
7: Diocesan decision: no Communion: 59
8: STS-130 launch report: 54
9: ”The Belgian Church has been too passive”: 53
10: Further developments around Reusel and Priest attacked… for being Catholic: 50

People who found my blog via search engines where mostly interested in Lent, Father Luc Buyens, STS-130 and Fr. Manfred Hauke. An  unusual search string was “endeavour two engines”, a term used during the ascent of space shuttle Endeavour that indicates that the orbiter can make it to a given destination (orbit, abort site) on two engines. And indeed, Google coughs up just two results for that search, the first of them being my blog.

Eyewitness account of a disgrace

The back of the cathedral, just after people had noisily left during the homily. The atmosphere was hostile.

 

 “Christ decides who receives Communion, not you!”   

“Exactly.”   

An example of the heckling towards Father Geertjan van Rossem, and his reply, during yesterday morning’s Mass at the cathedral of St. John in Den Bosch.   

I was there. I felt I should in order to defend my faith and my Church, in whatever minute way one person can. And I can tell is was a disgraceful display of inflated egos and refusal to objectively listen. The protesters, by and large, seemed to me people who were unable to move on from the initial emotion reaction to a measured objective debate. It was about them, and anyone who actually attended Mass for God (what a shocking concept!) be damned.   

I was dependent on the trains, so I arrived at the cathedral a few minutes after the start of Mass. Father van Rossem was saying a short word of welcome, which already elicited some booing. I found a standing place in the back, since the cathedral was really full: a fair number of people who were clearly only there for the protests (pink triangles on their clothes and all) and regular parishioners in the pews in the front. A formidable media presence was towards the left of the sanctuary.   

From my position I could see people coming in (including some ladies in pink wigs and pink ‘habits’ who wanted to walk towards the sanctuary but were stopped by the sacristans who were out in full force). The kyrie, the readings and the responsory psalm went without problem. I got some looks from the back pews for actually saying the responses and singing along with the psalm… Maybe people were amazed that people would attend Mass for other reasons than to air their egotistical grievances?   

Things went south during the homily. It was a good homily, starting with the texts of today and eventually leading towards a discourse about the Eucharist and our attitude towards it and Communion. As soon as certain people felt personally addressed they got up out of their pews (and since the pews in the cathedral have wooden doors that was accompanied by a lot of noise) and left the church. Then it was evident that they were only there to protest, not to act responsibly and actually listen. That was too much to ask. Father van Rossem paused for a while to wait for the noise to subside and then continued. As people got up, I moved from my place in the back to midway in the main aisle. There was security guy standing at the sanctuary, but if I could help stop some mad person for making a dash towards the altar, I would. Luckily, people just left or found a place to stand in the back.   

As Mass continued, things settled down a bit, until it was time for Communion. The diocese had already announced that the risk of profanation of the Blessed Sacrament was too high and that there would be no Communion for the congregation. The faithful present understood, heard Father van Rossem when he said that a spiritual Communion would be just as valid as a physical one, and were united with the priest when he received the Body and Blood of Christ. The protesters started clapping their hands and singing from the back. They once again wanted attention at the high point of Mass… It was sickening.   

After Mass the cathedral emptied pretty quickly. The protesters had their minds set on getting more attention, this time from the media, the faithful sat down to pray or went home, and I went for a cup of tea with a friend. We were all shaken by the experience, by this profanation of the holy liturgy. The mindlessness of people, their self-centeredness is sometimes staggering, and this was a new low for me.   

They homosexual rights groups have announced continued protests for the coming seven weeks… Not to achieve anything, because that’s not possible in this way. Debate is not possible: these people will only accept their own opinion – they own the truth, or so they think, and anyone who disagrees has no rights.   

It’s maddening and also very sad. The thing that we as faithful can and should do is not stoop to their level: maintain the integrity and sanctity of Mass, and transcend the childishness of the emotional response. Emotion is fine, but if we want to achieve any sense of agreement we need objective and measured discussion and not hissy fits.   

The second reading, from the Letter of St. Paul to the Philippians,  seems perfectly fitting to what I witnessed yesterday:   

Brothers, be united in imitating me. Keep your eyes fixed on those who act according to the example you have from me. For there are so many people of whom I have often warned you, and now I warn you again with tears in my eyes, who behave like the enemies of Christ’s cross. They are destined to be lost; their god is the stomach; they glory in what they should think shameful, since their minds are set on earthly things.   

But our homeland is in heaven and it is from there that we are expecting a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ,
who will transfigure the wretched body of ours into the mould of his glorious body, through the working of the power which he has, even to bring all things under his mastery.   

So then, my brothers and dear friends whom I miss so much, my joy and my crown, hold firm in the Lord, dear friends.   

Writing about all this once again makes me feel ill…

Diocesan decision: no Communion

The diocese of ‘s-Hertogenbosch has made a decision about next Sunday’s Mass:

“The church council of the cathedral of St. John in ‘s-Hertogenbosch has, in cooperation with the diocese of Den Bosch, decided not to distribute Communion at next Sunday’s 10 o’clock Mass, because various groups have announced to use the Mass as a protest action. The diocese mourns the fact that the celebration of the Eucharist is used for this purpose and asks for respect for holding Catholic services. Media will be placed in a separate press area, in the northern transept. Seen from the entrance in the tower that is front left near the altar. They are requested to not walk through the church or in front of the altar during the Mass. No one will be excluded from participating in the celebration, but they are being asked to participate respectfully.”

It’s a necessity because of the sad fact that even some Catholics are willing to put their own grievances above the service of God.

Source

Press conference points

Bishop Hurkmans and Henk Krol at the press conference following their meeting

This morning, Bishop Antoon Hurkmans and cathedral administrator Father Geertjan van Rossem met with Gaykrant editor Henk Krol and two representatives of the COC to discuss the fallout of the Reusel affair. The discussion was set to have been open and friendly, respectful and a breath of fresh air, but agreement was not reached. Not very surprising, in my opinion.  

Bishop Hurkmans emphasised that denying Communion to practicing homosexuals does not exclude from the Church’s life. But since the Communion is also a confirmation of faith, the receiver expresses his agreement with that. That means that the person who receives Communion lives in accordance with the faith and the Church’s teachings.  

The bishop also said he shares the pain of those who can’t receive Communion. He emphasised the importance of a person’s own responsibility to receive and so confirm their faith in the Church’s teachings. That is counter to the prevalent attitude that Communion is a right and even a custom – that receiving should be part of every Mass one attends.  

Fr. van Rossem acknowledges that things have grown somewhat lax in respect to handing out Communion, and he expects that the faithful will receive more education on the meaning of the Eucharist in the future. Let’s hope that will indeed happen.  

There have been no statements yet about how the diocese plans to respond to protests on Sunday at the cathedral. The diocese is still considering that, but Fr. van Rossem did say that there is concern about a possible disruption of the Mass.  

I am seriously considering travelling down to ‘s-Hertogenbosch on Sunday, to attend Mass there and offer a counter-balance to the protesters. Mass is not the place or time  for protest, and in this case we should perhaps try to maintain the sacrality of the Mass, a sacrality that transcends any protest greatly.

To court!

The Volkskrant reports today that a homosexual Catholic, Mr. Robèrt Cooijmans is going to report Fr. Luc Buyens, the priest who denied Communion to an openly homosexual man last week, with discrimination. He states: “My church can’t exclude anyone. There is no ground for that in the Bible.” A statement that is evidently incorrect, and indicative of Cooijmans’ knowledge of his own faith. And I won’t even start about the ‘my church’ business.

Cooijmans bases his claim on the fact that he has always received Communion without problem and polls by pro-homosexual media are said to say that as many as 94% of priests make no issue out of it. Does that validate the claim of discrimination? Of course not. If anything, and if true, it indicts the priests in question for ignoring Church teachings. Sadly, that is all too common in this country. And it may be cause for problems for Fr. Buyens too. I highly doubt that any court will accept the case, but the fact that this has no become an exclusively gender- and sexuality-based affair is a bit problematic.

Denying Communion to practising homosexuals is simply an obligation for every priest. But the same goes for divorced person, or people who live together unmarried or anyone who lives in a state of grave sin. Making this an exclusively homosexual affair is therefore counterproductive and incorrect. Sadly, I think that both sides in the argument may be to blame for that. Fr. Buyens for not being consistent and the media for hyping it as discrimination.

In the end, though, I think the court will consider this a matter of Church law, and Church law is very clear on this.

The misunderstanding and violent need to be proven right becomes painfully clear in other parts of the Volkskrant article quoted above. “We want to see if Communion will also be postpone there [the cathedral in ‘s-Hertogenbosch] if we are present,” says Giovanni Nijenhuis, chief of gay organisation Embrace Pink. “It is important for us all that the church acknowledges that homosexuality is a disposition, which has nothing to do with moral preconceptions”.

“We’ll totally confuse them,” he said about the planned protests.

This is not about intelligent debate, this is an emotional and childish need to be proven right, even if that is not the case.

What we Catholics should do is not lower ourselves to their tactics, but offer clear and concise explanations of the truth. That Communion is not a right, that excluding people from Communion is not  a matter of discrimination, that is not limited to homosexuals alone, that Communion is not the sole way of being part of the Church, and that the Church is neither a democracy nor a human club of which anyone, no matter what they do and how they live, can be a part. The Church, like any gathering of people, has rules that regulate it and improve its members. Denying those rules is like playing a football game and being upset when the referee calls foul when you don’t follow the rules of the game. “But football is for everyone, and everyone should be allowed to make their own rules!” That’s not football, that’s chaos.

Further developments around Reusel

The case in Reusel of the local priest denying communion to the openly homosexual carnival prince of the village continues to stir up the blogosphere. In Dutch, both Frank Meijneke and Father Cor Mennen comment on it. The original news item was even picked up internationally by LifeSiteNews and commented upon by the iPadre, Father Jay Finelli. In local news media, sadly, various dissident Catholics, such as former abbot Ton Baeten, criticise Father Buyens for his actions. But that was not unexpected. In orthodox circles, developments are sometimes reconsidered good because these people are against them.

The announced protests by homosexual organisations at the church in Reusel on Sunday did not fully materialise, luckily. Some people did show up, and others attended the Mass in protest. They handed out pink triangles to parishioners. Some politely returned them, others enthusiastically accepted.

Fearing a demonstrative refusal of the communion by people who attended Mass in protest (something for which the Body of Christ may never be used), Father Buyens decided to not distribute Communion at all. A sad but necessary decision to protect the Blessed Sacrament against possible profanation.

Translating from Frank Meijneke’s article linked to above:

“Receiving Holy Communion is seen as a right, which has led to the humble realisation of the gift of grace falling out of sight. […] [H]e who consciously denies God’s approach in an act of ‘protest’ does not deny the priest and not even the Church, but God Himself. With such an attitude it is of course not proper to receive the Body of the Lord as long as the relationship with God has not been repaired.”

And Father Mennen:

“It is disgusting to have to read in the newspaper how people speak about communion as “giving a host”, as if it is a piece of candy that everyone in the building has a right to receive.”

The latest news is now that the protesters, or possible a handful of instigators, plans to go to the cathedral of St. John the Baptist in ‘s-Hertogenbosch next Sunday. Why there? Because the next televised Mass will be broadcast from there…

Priest attacked… for being Catholic

One of the consequences of the carnival Masses I wrote about earlier, has become clear in the small town of Reusel, in the diocese of Den Bosch. A carnival Mass of some sort was planned there, but the local priest, Father Luc Buyens evidently thought it prudent to make sure the Mass was Catholic. He therefore made a phone call to the town’s carnival prince, a 24-year-old man who leads an openly homosexual lifestyle. Since the Church requires all faithful who present themselves for Communion to be in a state of grace and lead a life in agreement with their faith, Father Buyens could do little else but tell the carnival prince that he would not be able to receive Communion.

This did not go down well. The prince did not understand why he couldn’t receive, stating he was a Catholic, baptised and confirmed and that his grandparents were in shock because of all this. A local member of the town council took it upon himself to defend the poor victim and rallied the national gay newspaper to organise a protest at Fr. Buyen’s church on Sunday.  The paper’s editor promised he’d be there ‘to enter into discussion with the faithful’.

Father Buyens had seemingly anticipated a response like this and said he would clarify his reasons to his parishioners on Sunday.

Now, a lot can be said about this. In the first place, a dressed-up carnival prince, homosexual or not, has no business being a lector during Mass. Maintain some level of dignity and decorum in the presence of the Lord. But that’s another discussion.

The priest could do nothing else but to deny this man Communion. In fact, he should have done so five years ago, when the man is said to have embarked on his openly homosexual way of life. And if the carnival prince was as Catholic as he said, he should have known this.

But I’m not surprised he didn’t. The vast majority of Catholics in this country knows next to nothing about their faith, let alone about such an important element as the Eucharist. Knowing what is required of the faithful before they can receive the Body and Blood of Christ? Surely that’s out of the question.

So here we have a priest who did his job, the only thing he could do. As documents, theologians and other experts emphasise time and again, the liturgy is not ours to do with as we wish, so changing the requirements for Communion is an impossibility, pure and simple.

The skewed perception of this affair will be in favour of the alleged victim. The modern consensus is that the boundless freedom for everyone to do whatever they wish is more important than the freedom of others to follow a set of morals, values and beliefs. Because these are ultimately not to be trusted, because they limit the freedom of others. And that is why they must be opposed, loudly, disproportionately, and they certainly must not be reasoned with.

I really wonder what any demonstration will achieve, apart from more anti-Catholic sentiments in the media. They surely can’t expect that the priest will change his mind?

It is quite maddening, to be honest.