With a new voice, CDF revisits old teachings – Cardinal-designate Ladaria on the ordination of women

After several years in which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was conspicuously silent, perhaps kept silent as Pope Francis tried to decrease its importance among the curial dicasteries, a new leadership brings new sounds. Or old sounds repeated, perhaps.

Prefecto_Mons._LadariaArchbishop Luis Ladaria Ferrer, soon to be a cardinal, took over the reins at the CDF after Cardinal Gerhard Müller was let go about a year ago.  And since then, the Congregation published two major texts: Placuit Deo on Christian salvation, in February, and Oeconomicae et pecuniariae quaestiones on ethics in economy (published jointly with the Dicastery for Integral Human Development), in May. In comparison, that is the same number of documents released during the entire period that Cardinal Müller headed the CDF, from 2012 to 2017.

And this week, another document was released, not by the CDF itself, but by its prefect, who, it may be safely assumed, is given much more freedom to function as Pope Francis’ personal choice to head the CDF. But that does not mean that something entirely new now comes from the offices of the Congregation. Archbishop Ladaria’s recent article focusses on an issue that has been debated for decades and it is firmly rooted in the teaching of Pope St. John Paul II.

On the issue of the ordination of women to the priesthood, Archbishop Ladaria once more confirms that that is not something the Catholic Church has the authority for. He writes the article in response to “voices heard in several countries which call into doubt” this doctrine, which was so clearly declared by Pope St. John Paul II, and confirmed by his successors. The archbishop stresses that what John Paul II stated in the 1994 Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis was definitive then, and remains so now.

Below I present my translation of the article, based on the German text found here.

“Remain in me, as I remain in you. Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me” (John 15:4).  Only because of her roots in Jesus Christ, her founder, can the Church give life and salvation to the entire world. These roots are in the first place to be found in the sacraments, at the heart of which is the Eucharist. Established by Christ, the sacraments are the pillars of the Church, who is continuously built up by them as His body and His bride. The sacrament of ordination is deeply connected to the Eucharist, through which Christ makes Himself present as the source of her life and action. Priests are “conformed to Christ”,  so that “they can act in the person of Christ the Head” (Presbyterorum ordinis, n. 2).

Christ wanted to confer this sacrament upon the twelve Apostles, who were all men, and they have, in time, conferred it upon other men. The Church knew herself to be bound to this decision of the Lord, which excludes validly conferring the ministerial priesthood to women. In the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis, of 22 May 1994, John Paul II taught: “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful”(n. 4). The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith confirmed, in response to a question regarding the teaching of Ordinatio sacerdotalis, that this concerns a truth which belongs to deposit of faith (depositum fidei) of the Church.

In this light it is a great concern to me that there are voices heard in several countries which call into doubt the definitive character of the aforementioned teaching. In order to prove that this teaching is not definitive, the argument goes that is has not been defined ex cathedra and can thus be changed by a future pope or council. Spreading such doubts causes much confusion among the faithful, and not only with regard to the sacrament of Holy Orders, which belongs to he divine constitution of the Church, but also with regard to the ordinary Magisterium, which can infallibly pronounce Catholic doctrine.

On the first point: as for the ministerial priesthood, the Church knows that the impossibility of the ordination of women is part of the “substance” of the sacrament (cf. DH 1728). The Church lacks the authority to change this substance, as she is being built up as Church through the sacraments as established by Christ. This is not a matter of discipline, but a doctrine, as it concerns the structure of the sacraments, the first places of encounter with Christ and the transmission of faith. This is then not some obstacle which blocks the Church from fulfilling her mission in the world more effectively. When the Church can’t intervene in this question, the basis of it lies in the fact that the original love of God intervenes in it. He himself acts in the ordination of priests, so that, always and in every situation of its history, Jesus Christ is visible and active in the Church, “as the principal source of grace” (Pope Francis, Evangelii gaudium, n. 104).

In the awareness that she cannot change this tradition out of obedience to the Lord, the Church therefore tries to deepen its meaning. For the will of Jesus Christ, the Logos, is not without meaning. The priest acts in the person of Christ, the bridegroom of the Christ, and his being male is an indispensable aspect of this sacramental representation (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Inter insigniores, n. 5). To be sure, the diversity of tasks between men and women does not entail subordination, but a mutual enrichment. It must be remembered that the perfect image of the Church is Mary, the mother of the Lord, to whom was not given the apostolic ministry. This makes evident that the original language of masculinity and femininity, which the Creator has inscribed in the human body, is included in the work of our salvation. Precisely this fidelity to Christ’s plan with the ministerial priesthood allows the continuous deepening and promotion of the role of women in the Church, because “Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord” (1 Cor, 11:11). This may also shine a light on our culture, which struggles to understand the meaning and beauty of the difference between man and woman, which also affects their complementary missions in society.

On the second point: the doubts raised about the definitive character of Ordinatio sacerdotalis also have a major effect on how the magisterium of the Church is to be understood. It is important to emphasise that infallibility not only refers to solemn declarations from a council or to papal definitions made ex cathedra, but also to the ordinary and general magisterium of the bishops spread throughout the world, when they declare, in unity with each other and with the pope, Catholic doctrine as ultimately binding. John Paul II based himself on this infallibility in Ordinatio sacerdotalis. He also did not declare a new dogma, but confirmed, to remove any doubts, with the authority given to him as succesor of Peter in a formal declaration, what the ordinary and general magisterium had presented as belonging to the deposit of faith throughout all of history. This very kind of statement corresponds with a style of ecclesial communion in which the pope does not wish to act alone, but as a witness in listening to an uninterrupted and living tradition. Furthermore, no one will deny that the magisterium can infallibly express truths that are necessarily connected to what was formerly revealed as good. For only in this way can it fulfill its task to keep the faith holy and interpret it faithfully.

Further proof of John Paul II’s efforts in considering this question is the prior consultation with the heads of those bishops’ conferences who most had to deal with the problem. All, without exception, declared with full confidence that the Church, out of obedience to the Lord, did not have the authority to allow women to receive the sacrament of ordination.

Pope Benedict XVI also confirmed this doctrine. In the Chrism Mass on 5 April 2012 he recalled how John Paul II had declared “irrevocably” that the Church “has received no authority from the Lord” regarding the ordination of women. With an eye on those who do not accept this teaching, Benedict XVI wonders, “But is disobedience really a way […]? Do we sense here anything of that configuration to Christ which is the precondition for all true renewal, or do we merely sense a desperate push to do something to change the Church in accordance with one’s own preferences and ideas?”

Pope Francis has likewise taken position on this question. In his Apostolic Letter Evangelii gaudium he underlines: “The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the Spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion.” He also urges us not to interpret this doctrine as an expression of power, but as a service, so that the equal dignity of man and woman in one body of Christ may be better understood (n. 104). In the press conference during the return flight from the apostolic journey to Sweden on 1 November 2016 Pope Francis emphasised: “As for the ordination of women in the Catholic Church, the last clear word was given by Saint John Paul II, and this holds.”

The Church in our time is called to response to many challenges of our culture. It is essential that she remains in Christ, like the branches on the vine. The Master therefore invites us to keep His word in us: “If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love” (John 15:10). Only being faithful to His words, which do not fade, guarantees our rootedness in Christ and in is love. Only the accepting of His wise plans, which take shape in His sacraments, strengthens the Church at her roots, so that she can bear fruit for eternal life.

Luis F. Ladaria, SJ, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”

A cordial first – Dutch king and queen on state visit to the Holy See

While previous visits of Dutch royals to the Pope (and, once, vice versa) were usually perfectly cordial, yesterday saw the first official state visit of the King and Queen to the Pope. Perhaps the time of Dutch political unease with full-blooded Catholicism is now finally completely behind us.

19388379_1567303419961252_5208717965966549068_o

King Willem-Alexander and Queen Máxima spoke with Pope Francis for 35 minutes about, according to the Holy See press release,  “certain issues of shared interest, such as the protection of the environment and the fight against poverty, as well as […] the specific contribution of the Holy See and the Catholic Church in these fields.” Migration, peace and security were also discussed. The Holy Father also enquered after the couple’s three daughters. As a family, they had already visited him in April of last year.

Another topic, which may have been discussed in the subsequent meeting with Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, was the ongoing kidnapping of Dutch television presenter Derk Bolt and his driver in Colombia. Foreign Secretary Bert Koenders, who also takes part in the state visit to Italy and the Holy See, has been in constant communication with his staff in The Hague and the Colombian government, and the local Catholic Church has also been involved in negotiations to free the two men from rebel movement ELN. Bolt was working to find the biological parents of a woman who was adopted by a Dutch couple, and was kidnapped earlier this week near the border with Venezuela.*

Back in Rome, meanwhile, the meeting between the Pope and the royal couple was noted for its cordiality. Like Pope Francis, Queen Máxima hails from Argentina and thus the three conversed in Spanish. It was noted how the conversation continued for a few more minutes at the doors of the audience chamber, after the official conclusion of the meeting. Pope Francis gifted the king and queen with a medal depicting Saint Martin of Tours and copies of Laudato si’, Evangelii gaudium and Amoris laetitia, and his 2017 Message for the World Day of Peace, while he received white and yellow tulips for the Vatican gardens.

Before their private audience with the Pope, the king and queen visited the Church of the Frisians near St. Peter’s Square. There, they were received by Bishop Antoon Hurkmans, rector of the Dutch national church in Rome.

Concluding the one-day state visit, the king and queen received a commander’s baton which is claimed to have belonged to William of Orange. Won by the Spanish in the Battle of Mookerheide in 1574, it now belongs to a Jesuit monastery in Spain. It is now on loan to the National Military Museum, where it will be displayed next year. Jesuit Superiro General, Fr. Arturo Sosa officially handed the baton to King Willem-Alexander in the Apostolic Library.

download (1)

Photo credit: ANP

  • Mr. Bolt and his driver were released on Friday the 23rd of June.

“Share your faith!” – Bishop Wiertz’ letter for Lent

In what is most likely his last letter for Lent, Bishop Frans Wiertz of Roermond not only discusses a topic he has underlined before – that we are a part of the worldwide Church which is now on the receiving end of the mission – but also urges us to speak out about our deepest convictions as Catholics. Following the urging of Pope Francis, we must share the Good News, go out into the streets, share in order to multiply.

Mgr. F.J.M. Wiertz“Brothers and sisters,

The invention of social media gave a whole new meaning to the word ‘sharing’. Messages, photos and videos can be ‘shared’ with others via the Internet. An increasingly large number of people can take note of the message in this way. We could say that ‘sharing’ is the new ‘multiplying’. The more a message is shared, the more people can see and read it.

Sharing stories together in this way doesn’t happen on the Internet alone, of course. Every time we speak with people about what occupies our minds, we make others sharers of our experiences. We sometimes say, “What the heart thinks, the mouth speaks”.

On the occasion of the forty-day period of preparation for Easter, we can ask ourselves the question of how full of faith our heart is. How often do we speak about it with others? In other words: what do we do to share the Good News of Jesus Christ and so make sure that the Gospel is widely spread and multiplied?

That question doesn’t come out of nowhere. Christ Himself gave us the mission to spread His Good News across the entire world. We are by definition a missionary Church, a Church that goes out and shares the message which fills her heart.

And ‘the Church’, that is not only the priests or the members of the church board. It’s everyone who is baptised. It is our common mission to share our faith. We can only do so when we experience a personal connection to Jesus Christ; when we want to be His followers and honestly want to put that into practice. Each of us can so be missionary in very different ways.

For many people, the word mission evokes the image of missionaries who travelled to distant countries to proclaim the faith and do development work there. But the times have changed. Former mission territories have grown into mature young churches. We keep supporting them materially through campains like the Vastenactie. We do so in these weeks, and that is good. But in turn we in the west can learn much from their flourishing faith. We sometimes, then, speak about a reversed mission.

We are grateful to the world church which has been coming to our aid for some time. Foreign priests, seminarians and religious have come from their own familiar surroundings to our diocese. Like several missionary families, they have answered the call to serve the Lord and help us to share His Good News. They are an example to let a new missionary impetus grow in our parishes.

Happily, much is happening in practice. There are a fair number of volunteers who support and build up the parishes in numerous areas. Together with the priests, deacons and coworkers they take care of the future of the life of the Church in Limburg. By using their hands they show that they want to respond to the grace of their baptism and confirmation in an active way.

But a missionary Church makes a serious appeal to every Christian to share his or her faith. I know that we are often uncomfortable about that, and that many people sense a great reluctance about bearing witness of their faith all too openly.

It is as if a false sense of shame holds us back. There is no need for that. Isn’t it our deepest conviction? We shouldn’t walk away from that. For each of us as baptised Christians, it should be a matter of honour to address our common faith in God in our direct surroundings. Tell you children and grandchildren, your friends, neighbours and acquaintances that you believe.

As Church, we shouldn’t be closed in on ourselves. Pope Francis keep insisting on this. In one of his frequently quoted texts he claims to prefer “a Church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a Church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security” (Evangelii Gaudium, n. 49).

Those are clear words. The Pope invites us to go out; to literally and figuratively go out in into the street and speak or show in concrete acts what it means for us to follow Christ.

Obviously, every witness of faith must be authentic and come from the heart. In normal language, with respect for the opinions of the other and certainly not pushy. A missionary Church invites, cordially and mild.

Christ did not give us His Good News to keep it for ourselves, but to pass it on and share it with others. That is our missionary duty: sharing in order to multiply. What our heart is full off, our mouth is allowed to speak. Let us use this Lent to become conscious of that and invite others to share in that joy.

Roermond,

+ Frans Wiertz,
Bishop of Roermond”

Robert Kardinaal Sarah: “Naar een authentieke toepassing van Sacrosanctum Concilium”

This is a Dutch translation of Cardinal Robert Sarah’s address on the first day of the Sacra Liturgia conference, held in London from 5 to 8 July. This translation is based on the text as released via the Sacra Liturgia Facebook page. It is not a complete transcript of what Cardinal Sarah said. This is expected to be released sometime next week, after the cardinal has added a few points once he returns to Rome. In due time, this address, as well as the conference’s other papers, will be published in book form.


Dit is een Nederlandse vertaling van de toespraak die Kardinaal Robert Sarah heeft gegeven op de eerste dag van de Sacra Liturgia conferentie, gehouden in Londen van 5 tot 8 juli. Deze vertaling is gebasseerd op de tekst zoals die op de Facebook-pagina van Sacra Liturgia werd gepubliceerd. Het is geen volledige transcriptie van wat Kardinaal Sarah heeft gezegd. Het is de verwachting dat deze in de loop van de komende week wordt uitgegeven, zodra de kardinaal een aantal punten toe heeft kunnen voegen na zijn terugkeer naar Rome. Uiteindelijk zal deze toespraak, samen met alle andere die tijdens de conferentie gehouden zijn, in boekvorm uitgegeven worden.

TOESPRAAK VAN ZIJNE EMINENTIE ROBERT KARDINAAL SARAH:
“NAAR EEN AUTHENTIEKE TOEPASSING VAN SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM”

IMG_7842

Ik wil in de eerste plaats mijn dank uitspreken aan Zijne Eminentie Vincent Kardinaal Nichols, voor zijn welkom in het Aartsbisdom Westminster en zijn vriendelijke begroetingswoorden. Eveneens wil ik Zijne Excellentie Bisschop Dominique Rey, bisschop van Fréjus-Toulon, danken voor zijn uitnodiging om hier met u aanwezig zijn bij de derde internationale “Sacra Liturgia” conferentie, en vanavond de openingstoespraak te presenteren. Uwe Excellentie, ik feliciteer u met dit internationale initiatief ter bevordering van de studie van het belang van liturgische vorming en viering in het leven en de missie van de Kerk.

In deze toespraak wil ik een aantal overwegingen aan u voorleggen over hoe de westerse Kerk naar een meer getrouwe toepassing van Sacrosanctum Concilium kan toewerken. Hiermee wil ik de vraag stellen: “Wat hadden de Vaders van het Tweede Vaticaans Concilie voor ogen met de liturgische hervorming?” Daarna wil ik bespreken hoe hun bedoelingen na het Concilie zijn toegepast. Uiteindelijk zou ik u een aantal voorstellen willen voorleggen over het liturgisch leven van de Kerk vandaag, zodat onze liturgische praktijk de bedoelingen van de Concilievaders beter kan weergeven.

Het is volgens mij overduidelijk dat de Kerk leert dat de katholieke liturgie de unieke bevoorrechte locus is van het verlossende handelen van Christus in onze huidige wereld, door middel van werkelijke participatie waarin wij Zijn genade en kracht ontvangen die zo nodig zijn voor onze volharding en groei in het christelijk leven. Het is de goddelijke vastgestelde plaats waar wij onze plicht tot het aanbieden van een offer, het Ene Ware Offer, aan God komen vervullen. Het is waar we onze diepgaande behoefte om God te aanbidden verwerkelijken. Katholieke liturgie is iets heiligs, iets dat door haar aard heilig is. Katholieke liturgie is geen gewone menselijke samenkomst.

Ik wil hier een zeer belangrijk feit onderstrepen: God, niet de mens, staat in het hart van de katholieke liturgie. We komen om Hem te aanbidden. De liturgie gaat niet om jou of mij; we vieren er niet onze eigen identiteit of prestaties, verheerlijken of promoten er niet onze eigen cultuur of plaatselijke religieuze gewoontes. De liturgie draait in de allereerste plaats om God en wat Hij voor ons gedaan heeft. In Zijn Goddelijke Voorzienigheid heeft de Almachtige God de Kerk gesticht en de heilige liturgie ingesteld waarmee wij Hem ware aanbidding kunnen opdragen in overeenstemming met het Nieuwe Verbond dat Christus gebracht heeft.Hierdoor, door het binnengaan van de vereisten van de heilige riten die in de traditie van de Kerk zijn ontwikkeld, krijgen wij onze ware identiteit en betekenis als zonen en dochters van de Vader.

Het is van essentieel belang dat we dit specifieke karakter van de katholieke eredienst begrijpen, want in recente decennia hebben we vele liturgische vieringen gezien waarin mensen, persoonlijkheid en menselijke prestaties te prominent aanwezig waren, bijna tot uitsluiting van God. Zoals Kardinaal Ratzinger ooit schreef: “Als de liturgie in de eerste plaats een werkplaats voor ons eigen handelen lijkt, dan wordt het essentiële vergeten: God. Het vergeten van God is het meest dreigende gevaar van onze tijd” (Joseph Ratzinger, Theology of the Liturgy, Collected Works vol. 11, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2014, p. 593). 

We moeten volkomen duidelijk zijn over de aard van de katholieke eredienst als we de Constutitie over de Heilige Liturgie van het Tweede Vaticaans Concilie op de juiste wijze willen lezen en als we deze getrouw willen uitvoeren.

Al vele jaren voor het Concilie, in zowel missielanden als in de meer ontwikkelde gebieden, was er veel discussie over de mogelijkheid om het gebruik van de volkstalen in de liturgie uit te breiden, vooral voor de lezingen uit de Heilige Schrift, alsook voor een aantal andere onderdelen van het eerste deel van de Mis (wat we nu de “dienst van het Woord” noemen) en de liturgische zang. De Heilige Stoel had al meerdere keren toestemming gegeven voor het gebruik van de volkstaal in het toedienen van de sacramenten. Dit is de context waarin de Concilievaders spraken over de mogelijke positieve oecumenische of missionaire gevolgen van liturgische hervorming. Het is waar dat de volkstaal een positieve plaats heeft in de liturgie. Hier zochten de Vaders naar, niet naar de protestantisering van de Heilige Liturgie of instemmend met haar onderwerping aan een valse inculturisatie.

Ik ben een Afrikaan. Laat me dit duidelijk maken: de liturgie is niet de plaats om mijn cultuur te promoten. Het is veeleer de plaats waar mijn cultuur gedoopt wordt, waar mijn cultuur in het goddelijke wordt opgenomen. Door de liturgie van de Kerk (die missionarissen door heel de wereld hebben meegedragen) spreekt God tot ons, verandert Hij ons en stelt ons in staat deel te nemen in Zijn goddelijk bestaan. Als iemand christen wordt, als iemand in volledige eenheid met de katholieke kerk komt, ontvangt hij iets meer, iets dat hem verandert. Zeker, culturen en andere christenen brengen gaven met zich mee in de Kerk – de liturgie van de Ordinariaten voor Anglicanen die nu in volle eenheid met de Kerk zijn is hier een prachtig voorbeeld van. Maar zij brengen deze gaven met nederigheid, en de Kerk, in haar moederlijke wijsheid, maakt er gebruik zoals zij dat goed acht.

Eén van de duidelijkste en mooiste uitdrukking van de bedoelingen van de Concilievaders is te vinden aan het begin van het tweede hoofdstuk van de Constitutie, dat het mysterie van de Hoogheilige Eucharistie behandelt. In nummer 48 lezen we:

“Daarom geeft de Kerk zich alle zorg en moeite, dat de christengelovigen dit geheim van het geloof niet als buitenstaanders of als zwijgende toeschouwers bijwonen, maar dat zij het door de riten en gebeden goed leren begrijpen en daardoor bewust, godvruchtig en actief deelnemen aan de heilige handeling, dat zij door Gods woord onderwezen worden, zich voeden aan de tafel van ‘s Heren Lichaam en God dank brengen, dat zij het onbevlekt Offer opdragen niet alleen door de handen van de priester, maar ook tezamen met hem, en zo zich zelf leren offeren, dat zij eindelijk steeds meer door Christus de Middelaar uitgroeien tot een volmaakte eenheid met God en met elkaar, opdat tenslotte Gods alles in allen moge zijn.”

Broeders en zusters, dit is wat de Concilievaders wilden. Jazeker, ze discussieerden en stemden over specifieke manieren om hun bedoelingen toe te passen. Maar laat ons glashelder zijn: de rituele hervormingen in de Constitutie, zoals het herstel van het gebed van de gelovigen tijdens de Mis (n. 53), de uitbreiding van de concelebratie (n. 57) of een aantal van haar beleidslijnen zoals de vereenvoudiging verlangd in nummers 34 en 50, zijn alle ondergeschikt aan de fundamentele bedoelingen van de Concilievaders die ik zojuist heb omschreven. Het zijn middelen tot een doel, en het is het doel dat wij moeten behalen.

Als we naar een authentiekere toepassing van Sacrosanctum Concilium willen toewerken, dan moeten we op de allereerste plaats deze einddoelen in het oog houden. Misschien dat, als we ze met een frisse blik en met het voordeel van de ervaring van de laatste vijf decennia bestuderen, we sommige rituele hervormingen en bepaalde liturgische beleidslijnen in een ander licht zullen zien. Als sommige van deze nu moeten worden heroverwogen, om zo “het christelijk leven onder de gelovigen steeds hoger op te voeren” en “alle mensen tot de Kerk te roepen”, laat ons dan de Heer vragen ons de liefde en de nederigheid en wijsheid te schenken om dit te doen.

Ik noem deze mogelijkheid om opnieuw naar de Constitutie en de hervorming die volgde op de publicatie ervan te kijken, omdat ik niet denk dat we vandaag zelfs ook maar de eerste paragraaf van Sacrosanctum Concilium eerlijk kunnen lezen en tevreden kunnen zijn dat we de doelstellingen ervan hebben bereikt. Broeders en zusters, waar zijn de gelovigen waarover de Concilievaders spraken? Vele gelovigen zij nu ongelovig: ze komen helemaal niet meer naar de liturgie. In de woorden van de heilige Johannes Paulus II: vele christenen leven in een staat van “stille afvalligheid;” zij “leven alsof God niet bestaat” (Apostolische Exhortatie Ecclesia in Europa, 28 juni 2003, 9). Waar is de eenheid die het Concilie hoopte te bereiken? We hebben het nog niet bereikt. Hebben we werkelijk vooruitgang geboekt in het roepen van alle mensen tot de Kerk? Ik denk het niet. En toch hebben we heel veel in de liturgie gedaan!

In mijn 47 jaar als priester en na meer dan 36 jaar aan bisschoppelijk dienstwerk kan ik verklaren dat vele katholieke gemeenschappen en individuen de liturgie, zoals hervormd na het Concilie, met geestdrift en vreugde leven en vieren, en er veel van, zo niet al, het goede uit halen dat de Concilievaders verlangden. Dit is een grote vrucht van het Concilie. Maar uit mijn ervaring – nu ook als Prefect van de Congregatie voor de Goddelijke Eredienst en de Regeling van de Sacramenten – weet ik ook dat er vele vervormingen van de liturgie in heel de Kerk van vandaag bestaan, en er zijn vele situaties die verbeterd kunnen worden zodat de doelstellingen van het Concilie behaald kunnen worden. Voor ik over een aantal mogelijke verbeteringen spreek, laten we bedenken wat er gebeurde na de publicatie van de Constitutie over de Heilige Liturgie.

Terwijl het officiele hervormingswerk plaatsvondt ontstonden er een aantal zeer ernstige verkeerde interpretaties van de liturgie en deze schoten wortel in verschillende plaatsen in de wereld. Deze misbruiken van de Heilige Liturgie ontwikkelden zich vanwege een foutief begrip van het Concilie en resulteerden in liturgische vieringen die subjectief waren en meer gericht op de verlangens van de individuele gemeenschap dan op de offerdienst van de Almachtige God. Mijn voorganger als Prefect van de Congregatie, Francis Kardinaal Arinze, noemde dit ooit eens “de doe-het-zelf Mis”. De heilige Johannes Paulus II vond het zelfs noodzakelijk het volgende te schrijven in zijn encycliek Ecclesia de Eucharistia (17 april 2003):

“Deze dienst van de verkondiging van de kant van het Leergezag heeft een antwoord gekregen in de innerlijke groei van de christelijke gemeente. Zonder twijfel heeft de liturgiehervorming van het Concilie in hoge mate bijgedragen aan een bewustere, actievere en vruchtbaarder deelname aan het heilig Offer van het Altaar van de kant van de gelovigen. Op veel plaatsen is Aanbidding van het Allerheiligst Sacrament ook een belangrijke dagelijkse praktijk en wordt een onuitputtelijke bron van heiligheid. De vrome deelname van de gelovigen aan de eucharistische processie op Sacramentsdag is een genade van de Heer die ieder jaar vreugde brengt aan hen die eraan deelnemen. Andere positieve tekenen van geloof in en liefde voor de Eucharistie zouden nog genoemd kunnen worden.

Helaas is er naast dit licht ook schaduw. Op sommige plaatsen is de praktijk van de eucharistische Aanbidding vrijwel volledig verwaarloosd. In verschillende delen van de Kerk zijn misbruiken opgetreden, die lijden tot verwarring met betrekking tot het gezonde geloof en de katholieke leer ten aanzien van dit wonderbaarlijke Sacrament. Soms komt men een uiterst verengd begrip van het eucharistische mysterie tegen. Beroofd van zijn betekenis als offer wordt het gevierd als ware het eenvoudigweg een broederlijke maaltijd. Daarenboven wordt van tijd tot tijd de noodzaak van het ambtelijke priesterschap dat wortelt in de apostolische opvolging verduisterd en de sacramentaliteit van de Eucharistie wordt teruggebracht tot louter werkdadigheid in de verkondiging. Dit heeft hier en daar geleid tot oecumenische initiatieven die hoewel edel in hun motieven, toegeven aan eucharistische praktijken die in tegenspraak zijn met de discipline waarmee de Kerk haar geloof uitdrukt. Kunnen wij anders dan onze diepe droefheid over dit alles uitdrukken? De Eucharistie is een te groot geschenk dan dat wij dubbelzinnigheid en verschraling van de betekenis zouden kunnen dulden.

Ik vertrouw erop dat deze encycliek er effectief aan kan bijdragen om de schaduwen van onaanvaardbare doctrines en praktijken te verdrijven, opdat de Eucharistie verder moge stralen in heel de glans van haar mysterie (n. 10).”

Hier bestond ook een pastorale werkelijkheid: om goede redenen of niet, sommige mensen konden of wilden niet deelnemen aan de hervormde riten. Zij bleven weg of namen alleen deel aan de niet-hervormde liturgie waar ze die konden vinden, zelfs als de viering ervan niet was toegestaan. Zo werd de liturgie een uitdrukking van verdeeldheid in de Kerk, in plaats van één van katholieke eenheid. Het Concilie wilde niet dat de liturgie ons van elkaar scheidde! De heilige Johannes Paulus II werkte aan het genezen van deze verdeling, met de hulp van Kardinaal Ratzinger die, als Paus Benedictus XVI, de nodige interne verzoening in de Kerk wilde faciliteren door in zijn Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (7 juli 2007) te bepalen dat de oudere vorm van de Romeinse ritus zonder beperkingen beschikbaar moet zijn voor die individuen en groepen die uit haar rijkdom willen putten. In Gods Voorzienigheid is het nu mogelijk onze katholieke eenheid te vieren met respect voor, en zelfs vreugde in, een legitieme diversiteit van de rituele praktijk.

We mogen dan een hele nieuwe, moderne liturgie in de volkstaal hebben opgebouwd, maar als we niet de juiste basis hebben gelegd – als onze seminaristen en geestelijkheid niet “diep doordrongen zijn van de geest en de kracht van de liturgie”, zoals het Concilie vroeg – dan kunnen zij zelf de mensen die aan hun zorg zijn toevertrouwd niet vormen. We moeten de woorden van het Concilie zelf zeer serieus nemen: het zou “kansloos” zijn te hopen op een liturgische vernieuwing zonder een grondige liturgische vorming. Zonder deze essentiële vorming zouden geestelijken zelfs schade toebrengen aan het geloof van mensen in het eucharistisch mysterie.

Ik wil niet bovenmatig pessimistisch overkomen, en ik zeg nogmaals: er zijn vele, vele gelovige mannelijke en vrouwelijke leken, vele geestelijken en religieuzen voor wie de liturgie zoals hervormd na het Concilie een bron van veel geestelijke en apostolische vruchten is, en daar dank ik de Almachtige God voor. Maar ik denk dat u het met mij eens zal zijn, zelfs op basis van mijn korte analyse hierboven, dat we beter kunnen doen, zodat de Heilige Liturgie werkelijk de bron en het hoogtepunt van het leven en de missie van de Kerk wordt, nu, aan het begin van de eenentwintigste eeuw, zoals de Concilievaders zozeer verlangden.

Gezien de fundamentele verlangens van de Concilievaders en de verschillende situaties die na het Concilie zichtbaar zijn geworden, zou ik een aantal praktische overwegingen willen presenteren over hoe we Sacrosanctum Concilium vandaag beter kunnen toepassen. Ook al dien ik als Prefect van de Congregatie voor de Goddelijke Eredienst, ik doe dit in alle nederigheid als een priester en een bisschop in de hoop dat dit een volwassen reflectie en studie en goed liturgisch handelen in heel de Kerk zal bevorderen.

Het zal geen verrassing zijn wanneer ik zeg dat we in de eerste plaats de kwaliteit en diepgang van onze liturgische vorming moeten onderzoeken, hoe we de geest en kracht van de liturgie overbrengen op onze geestelijken, religieuzen en lekengelovigen. Te vaak nemen we aan dat onze wijdingskandidaten voor het priesterschap of het permanente diaconaat genoeg over de liturgie “weten”. Maar het Concilie drong hierin niet aan op kennis, hoewel de Constitutie natuurlijk het belang van liturgiestudie onderstreepte (zie n. 15-17). Nee, de eerste en essentiële liturgische vorming is meer een onderdompeling in de liturgie, in het diepe mysterie van God, onze liefhebbende Vader. Het is een kwestie van de liturgie beleven in al haar rijkdom, zodat we, na gedronken te hebben uit haar bron, altijd dorsten naar haar verrukkingen, haar orde en schoonheid, haar stilte en bezinning, haar verheerlijking en aanbidding, haar vermogen ons ten diepste te verbinden met Hem die in en door de riten van de Kerk werkt.

Als we hier zorg voor dragen, als onze nieuwe priesters en diakens werkelijk dorsten naar de liturgie, zullen zij op hun beurt in staat zijn degenen die aan hun zorg zijn toevertrouwd te vormen – zelfs als de liturgische situatie en mogelijkheden van hun kerkelijke missie bescheidener zijn dan die van het seminarie of de kathedraal. Ik weet van vele priesters in zulke omstandigheden die hun mensen vormen in de geest en kracht van de liturgie, en wier parochies voorbeelden zijn van grote liturgische schoonheid. We moeten niet vergeten dat waardige eenvoud niet hetzelfde is als reductief minimalisme of een verwaarloosde en vulgaire stijl. Zoals onze Heilige Vader, Paus Franciscus, leert in zijn Apostolische Exhortatie Evangelii Gaudium: “De Kerk evangeliseert en evangeliseert zichzelf met de schoonheid van de liturgie, die ook viering is van de evangeliserende activiteit en bron van een hernieuwde impuls tot zelfgave.” (n. 24)

Ten tweede denk ik dat het zeer belangrijk is dat we duidelijk zijn over de aard van liturgische participatie, van de participatio actuosa waar het Concilie toe opriep. Hierover is veel verwarring geweest in de laatste decennia. Nummer 48 van de Constitutie zegt: De Kerk wil “dat de christengelovigen dit geheim van het geloof niet als buitenstaanders of als zwijgende toeschouwers bijwonen, maar dat zij het door de riten en gebeden goed leren begrijpen en daardoor bewust, godvruchtig en actief deelnemen aan de heilige handeling.” Het Concilie beschouwt participatie als voornamelijk intern, voortkomend uit een goed begrip van de riten en gebeden. Zeker, de Concilievaders vragen de gelovigen te zingen, de priester te antwoorden, liturgische taken op zich te nemen die rechtmatig de hunne zijn, maar staan erop dat allen zich bewust zijn van wat ze doen, “godvruchtig en actief”.

Als we het belang van de internisalisatie van onze liturgische participatie begrijpen zullen we het luidruchtige en gevaarlijke liturgische activisme, dat in de laatste decennia zo prominent aanwezig is geweest, vermijden. We gaan niet naar de liturgie om op te treden, om dingen te doen zodat anderen het kunnen zien: we gaan om verbonden te worden met het handelen van Christus door een internalisatie van de uitwendige liturgische riten, gebeden, tekenen en symbolen. Wellicht dat degenen die geroepen zijn tot liturgisch dienstwerk dit zich beter moeten herinneren dan anderen! Maar we moeten anderen ook vormen, in het bijzonder onze kinderen en jonge mensen, in de ware betekenis van liturgische participatie, in de ware manier om de liturgie te bidden.

Ten derde, ik heb gesproken over het feit dat een aantal hervormingen die na het Concilie zijn ingevoerd mogelijk zijn samengesteld volgens de tijdsgeest en dat er een groeiende hoeveelheid studie door trouwe zonen en dochters van de Kerk is geweest, waarin wordt gevraagd of wat was ingevoerd werkelijk de doelstellingen van de Constitutie toepaste, of dat ze er in werkelijkheid aan voorbij gingen. Deze studie vindt soms plaats onder de noemer “hervorming van de hervorming” en ik weet dat EH Thomas Kocik over deze kwestie een doorwrochte studie heeft gepresenteerd tijdens de Sacra Liturgia conferentie in New York, een jaar geleden.

Ik denk niet dat we de mogelijkheid of de wenselijkheid van een officiële hervorming van de liturgische hervorming kunnen afwijzen, omdat haar voorstanders een aantal belangrijke beweringen doen in hun pogingen trouw te zijn aan de nadruk van het Concilie in nummer 23 van de Constitutie “om de gezonde traditie te bewaren en toch de weg te openen voor een gewettigde vooruitgang”, en dat “vernieuwingen niet plaats hebben, tenzij deze door een werkelijk en duidelijk nut van de Kerk worden vereist, waarbij men er op dient te letten, dat de nieuwe vormen als het ware organisch voortkomen uit de reeds bestaande vormen.”

Ik kan meedelen dat, toen ik afgelopen april door de Heilige Vader in audiëntie werd ontvangen, Paus Franciscus mij vroeg de kwestie van een hervorming van een hervorming te bestuderen en hoe beide vormen van de Romeinse ritus te verrijken. Dat zal een fijngevoelig werk zijn en ik vraag om uw geduld en gebed. Maar als we Sacrosanctum Concilium beter willen toepassen, als we willen bereiken wat het Concilie verlangde, dan is dit een serieuze kwestie die zorgvuldig moet worden bestudeerd en behandeld met de nodige duidelijkheid en voorzichtigheid.

Wij priesters, wij bisschoppen dragen een grote verantwoordelijkheid. Hoe leidt ons goede voorbeeld tot goed liturgisch handelen; hoe kwetst onze onachtzaamheid of wangedrag de Kerk en haar heilige liturgie!

Wij priesters moeten in de allereerste plaats aanbidders zijn. Onze mensen zien het verschil tussen een priester die met geloof viert en één die haastig viert, veel op zijn horloge kijkt, bijna alsof hij zo snel mogelijk weer terug naar de televisie wil! Priesters, we kunnen niets belangrijkers doen dan de heilige mysteries te vieren: laten we oppassen voor de verleiding van liturgische luiheid, want dat is een verleiding van de duivel.

We moeten onthouden dat wij niet de makers van de liturgie zijn. Wij zijn haar nederige bedienaars, onderworpen aan haar discipline en wetten. Wij hebben ook de verantwoordelijkheid om degenen die ons bijstaan in liturgische functies te vormen in zowel de geest en kracht van de liturgie en zeker ook haar regels. Ik heb soms priesters een stap terug doen zetten om buitengewone bedienaars de Heilige Communie uit te laten delen: dit is fout, het is een ontkenning van het priesterlijk dienstwerk evenals een klerikalisering van de leken. Wanneer dit gebeurt is het een teken dat de vorming verkeerd is gegaan, en dat het gecorrigeerd moet worden.

Ik heb ook priesters en bisschoppen gezien die, gekleed om de Heilige Mis te vieren, telefoons en camera’s tevoorschijn haalden en in de heilige liturgie gebruikten. Dit is een verschrikkelijke aanklacht tegen het begrip dat zij hebben over wat ze doen als ze de liturgische gewaden aantrekken, dus zich als een alter Christus kleden – en nog meer, als ipse Christus, als Christus zelf. Dit is heiligschennis. Geen bisschop, priester of diaken die is gekleed voor het liturgisch dienstwerk of aanwezig op het priesterkoor moet foto’s nemen, zelfs niet tijdens grote geconcelebreerde Missen. Dit priesters dit vaak doen tijdens zulke Missen, of met elkaar praten of nonchalant zitten, is volgens mij een teken dat wij opnieuw moeten nadenken over de gepastheid van deze Missen, vooral als het priesters aanzet tot zulk schandalig gedrag dat het gevierde mysterie zo onwaardig is, of als de grootte van deze geconcelebreerde vieringen tot het risico van ontheiliging van de heilige Eucharistie leidt.

Ik wil een beroep doen aan alle priester. U heeft misschien mijn artikel in L’Osservatore Romano van een jaar geleden (12 juni 2015) gelezen, of mijn interview met het tijdschrift Famille Chrétienne in mei van dit jaar. Bij beide gelegenheden heb ik gezegd dat ik denk dat het heel belangrijk is dat we zo snel mogelijk terugkeren naar een gezamenlijke richting, van priesters en gelovigen samen in dezelfde richting – naar het ooster of tenminste naar de apsis – naar de Heer die komt, in die delen van de liturgische riten waarin we ons tot God richten. Dit is toegestaan onder de huidige liturgische regels. Het is volledig legitiem in de moderne ritus. Ik denk dat het een heel belangrijke stap is om te verzekeren dat in onze vieringen de Heer werkelijk in het centrum staat.

En dus, beste priesters, vraag ik u dit waar mogelijk toe te passen, voorzichtig en met de nodige catechese, zeker, maar ook met het zelfvertrouwen van een herder dat dit iets goeds is voor de Kerk, iets goeds voor onze mensen. Uw eigen pastorale oordeel zal bepalen hoe en wanneer dit mogelijk is, maar wellicht is de eerste zondag van de Advent van dit jaar, wanneer we uitkijken naar “de Heer die zal komen” en “die niet aarzelt”, een hele goede tijd om dit te doen. Beste priesters, we zouden opnieuw moeten luisteren naar de klaagzang van God zoals verkondigd door de profeet Jeremia: “ze hebben Mij de rug toegekeerd” (2:27). Laat ons weer naar de Heer terugkeren!

Ik zou ook een beroep willen doen op mijn broeders bisschoppen: leidt u alstublieft uw priesters en mensen op deze manier naar de Heer, in het bijzonder in grote vieringen in uw bisdommen en in uw kathedraal. Vorm uw seminaristen alstublieft in de werkelijkheid dat we niet tot het priesterschap geroepen zijn om zelf in het hart van de liturgische eredienst te staan, maar om de gelovigen van Christus als medegelovigen naar Hem te leiden. Maak deze eenvoudige maar diepgaande hervorming alstublieft mogelijk in uw bisdommen, uw kathedralen, uw parochies en uw seminaries.

Wij bisschoppen hebben een grote verantwoordelijkheid, en ooit zullen we ons voor de Heer moeten verantwoorden over ons beheer. Wij bezitten niets! Zoals de heilige Paulus ons leert, wij zijn slechts “helpers van Christus, belast met het beheer van Gods geheimen” (1 Kor. 4:1). Wij hebben de verantwoordelijkheid ervoor te zorgen dat de heilige werkelijkheid van de liturgie wordt gerespecteerd in onze bisdommen en dat onze priesters en diakens zich niet alleen aan de liturgische voorschriften houden, maar de geest en de kracht van de liturgie waaruit deze voortkomen kennen. Ik was zeer bemoedigd door het lezen van de presentatie getiteld “The Bishop: Governor, Promoter and Guardian of the Liturgical Life of the Diocese”, gegeven voor de Sacra Liturgia conferentie in Rome in 2013 door aartsbisschop Alexander Sample van Portland in Oregon in de VS, en ik raad mijn broeders bisschoppen op broederlijke wijze aan zijn overwegingen zorgvuldig te bestuderen.

Hier herhaal ik wat ik elders heb gezegd: dat Paus Franciscus mij heeft gevraagd het liturgisch werk voort te zetten dat Paus Benedictus begonnen is (zie: Boodschap aan Sacra Liturgia 2015, New York City). Het feit dat we een nieuwe paus hebben betekent niet dat de visie van zijn voorganger nu niet langer geldig is. Integendeel, zoals we weten heeft onze Heilige Vader Paus Franciscus het grootste respect voor de liturgische visie en maatregelen die Paus Benedictus heeft uitgevoerd in opperste trouw aan de wensen en doelstellingen van de Concilievaders.

Staat u mij, voor ik afrond, toe een aantal andere kleine manieren te noemen die ook bij kunnen dragen aan een meer getrouwe toepassing van Sacrosanctum Concilium. Eén daarvan is dat we de liturgie moeten zingen, we moeten de liturgische teksten zingen, met respect voor de liturgische tradities van de Kerk en ons verheugend in de schatkist aan gewijde muziek die de onze is, in het bijzonder die muziek die hoort bij de Romeinse ritus, het Gregoriaans. We moeten gewijde liturgische muziek zingen, en niet slechts religieuze muziek of, erger, wereldse muziek.

We moeten de juiste balans vinden tussen de volkstalen en het gebruik van het Latijn in de liturgie. Het Concilie heeft nooit de bedoeling gehad dat de Romeinse ritus volledig in de volkstaal gevierd zou worden. Maar het wilde wel een breder gebruik ervan toestaan, in het bijzonder voor de lezingen. Tegenwoordig zou het mogelijk moeten zijn, vooral door moderne druktechnieken, om voor ieder het begrijpen van het Latijn te vergemakkelijken, wellicht voor de liturgie van de Eucharistie, en dit is natuurlijk met name gepast bij internationale samenkomsten waar de plaatselijke volkstaal door velen niet verstaan wordt. En wanneer de volkstaal gebruikt wordt moet het natuurlijk een juiste vertaling van het originele Latijn zijn, zoals Paus Franciscus recent aan mij heeft bevestigd.


Tussenkomst van Bisschop Rey

Met grote vreugde hebben we vandaag gehoord dat onze Heilige Vader, Paus Franciscus, u heeft gevraagd een studie te beginnen van de liturgische hervorming na het Concilie, en mogelijkheden te verkennen van wederzijdse verrijking tussen de oudere en nieuwere vormen van de Romeinse ritus, oorspronkelijk besproken door Paus Benedictus XVI.

Uwe Eminentie, uw oproep dat wij “zo snel mogelijk terugkeren naar een gezamenlijke richting” in onze liturgische vieringen, “naar het ooster of tenminste naar de apsis – naar de Heer die komt,” is een uitnodiging tot een radicale herontdekking van iets dat aan de wortel ligt van de christelijke liturgie. Het roept ons op om wederom te beseffen dat, in al onze liturgische vieringen, de christelijke liturgie in essentie gericht is op Christus, wiens komst wij met vreugdevolle hoop afwachten.

Uwe Eminentie, ik ben slechts één bisschop van één bisdom in het zuiden van Frankrijk. Maar als antwoord op uw oproep wil ik nu aankondigen dat, in ieder geval op de laatste zondag van de Advent van dit jaar, in mijn viering van de heilige Eucharistie in mijn kathedraal en bij andere gelegenheden zoals het past, ik ad orientem zal vieren – in de richting van de Heer die komt. Voor de Advent zal ik een brief schrijven aan mijn priesters en mensen over deze kwestie om mijn beslissing toe te lichten. Ik zal hen aanmoedigen mijn voorbeeld te volgen. Ik zal hen vragen mijn persoonlijke getuigenis, als eerste herder van het bisdom, te ontvangen in de geest van iemand die zijn volk wil oproepen om hierdoor het primaatschap van de genade in hun liturgische vieringen te herontdekken. Ik zal uitleggen dat deze verandering ons zal helpen de fundamentele aard van de christelijke eredienst te herinneren: dat het steeds op de Heer gericht moet zijn.


Kardinaal Sarah, Addendum

We moeten ervoor zorgen dat aanbidding het hart is van onze liturgische vieringen. Te vaak maken we niet de beweging van viering naar aanbidding, maar als we dat niet doen ben ik bang dat we niet altijd volledig intern hebben deelgenomen aan de liturgie. Twee lichaamshoudingen zijn hier nuttig, zelf onmisbaar. De eerste is stilte. Als ik nooit stil ben, als de liturgie mij geen ruimte geeft voor stil gebed en bezinning, hoe kan ik dan Christus aanbidden, hoe ik mij dan in mijn hart en ziel met Hem verbonden voelen? Stilte is zeer belangrijk, en niet alleen voor en na de liturgie.

Zo is ook het knielen bij de consecratie (tenzij ik ziek ben) van belang. In het westen is dit een lichamelijke handeling van aanbidding die ons nederig maakt voor onze Heer en God. Het is in zichzelf een gebedshandeling. Waar knielen en buigen uit de liturgie zijn verdwenen moeten ze worden teruggebracht, in het bijzonder in verband met het ontvangen van onze Heer in de heilige communie. Beste priesters, vorm uw mensen, waar mogelijk en met pastorale prudentie, zoals ik eerder zei, in deze prachtige handeling van aanbidding en liefde. Laat ons wederom neerknielen in aanbidding en liefde voor de Eucharistische Heer!

In verband met het geknield ontvangen van de heilige communie  wil ik verwijzen naar de brief van de Congregatie voor de Goddelijke Eredienst en de Regeling van de Sacramenten uit 2002, die duidelijk maakt dat “elke weigering van de Heilige Communie aan één van de gelovigen op basis van zijn of haar knielende houding is een ernstige overtreding van één van de meest fundamentele rechten van de christengelovigen” (Brief, 1 juli 2002, Notitiae, n. 437, nov-dec 2002, p. 583).

Het correct kleden van alle liturgische bedienaren op het priesterkoor, inclusief de lectoren, is ook van groot belang, wil dit dienstwerk als authentiek beschouwd worden en wil het uitgevoerd worden met het decorum passend bij de heilige liturgie – ook de bedienaren zelf dienen de juiste eerbied te tonen voor de mysteries die zij toedienen.

Dit zijn enkele voorstellen: ik ben er zeker van dat er vele andere gedaan kunnen worden. Ik leg ze u voor als mogelijke manieren om verder te gaan naar “de juiste manier om de liturgie innerlijk en uiterlijk te vieren”, dat natuurlijk het verlangen was dat Kardinaal Ratzinger aan het begin van zijn grootse werk, De Geest van de Liturgie, uitdrukte (Joseph Ratzinger, Theology of the Liturgy, Collected Works vol. 11, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2014, p. 4). Ik moedig u aan om alles te doen dat u kunt om dit doel te realiseren, dat volledig in overeenstemming is met dat van de Constitutie over de Heilige Liturgie van het Tweede Vaticaans Concilie.

 

 

Seriousness and joy, two bedfellows in the Year of Mercy – Archbishop De Kesel’s installation homily

Last Saturday, Msgr. Jozef De Kesel was installed as the 24th Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels, at the Cathedral of St. Rumbold. Attending were, among others, the Belgian king and queen, all other Belgian bishops (including Archbishop De Kesel’s two predecessors, Archbishop Léonard and Cardinal Danneels), as well as Cardinal Wim Eijk from the Netherlands and Bishop Gérard Coliche from France. In his homily, the new archbishop looked at the readings of the third Sunday of Advent, and kept close to the theme of the Holy Year of Mercy. In the spirit of Pope Francis, he called for a Church that goes out into the world, to confront “our greatest danger today: the globalisation of indifference.”

Read my translation of the homily, which was given in both French and Dutch, below.

12348027_1519573191703090_3620166911912104879_n

“Dear friends,

The Scripture readings we have just heard are the reading for the third Sunday of Advent. They are words that are being read today and tomorrow everywhere in the world, wherever Christians come together on the Sunday. They prepare us for Christmas. But they do give us mixed feelings. On the one hand we have John’s call for conversion. That we do not miss He who is coming. For He is coming, he says, “to clear his threshing floor”. Not exactly a comforting message. Words that point out the seriousness of the situation and our responsibility.

But at the same time there is also the call to joy. “Rejoice in the Lord always. I shall say it again: rejoice!” he says. Of old this Sunday has also been called this: Sunday Gaudete! And Saint Paul adds, “Have no anxiety …  the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and minds. The Prophet Zephaniah shares the same call for joy. They seem unlikely bedfellows: the seriousness and responsibility that John emphasises and the call to joy and happiness. But it is these two which brings us together today: great responsibility, but also great joy.

Yes, the words of John are binding. He calls to conversion. Yet when those who have just been baptised ask him, “What should we do?”, his response is surprising. He asks for nothing extraordinary or sensational. Share what you have. They should not give everything, but what they have. If you have more clothing than you need, then give to those who do not have enough. The same applies to food: share what you have more of than you need. And to the tax collectors he does not say to cease their work. He simply says, “Stop collecting more than what is prescribed”. Beware of corruption. And the soldiers who come to him, he does not ask to desert. He simply asks them: do what you do properly, without abusing your position and without the use of arbitrary violence. Never forget that you are human like everyone else. What John asks requires string commitment. That is true. But he does not ask anything extravagant. A baptised person does not keep a distance from others. We are to return to the responsibility and solidarity that we share with all men, regardless of their religion of belief.

But why be baptised? Why be Christian? The liturgy of this Sunday gives us the answer, and it too is astonishing. It is the joy that makes me a believer. It is not out of necessity or because I feel obligated. I am a Christian in freedom and love. We are known and loved by God. This is the heart of our faith. This joy and all love is therefore a call to fidelity and conversion.

This is the heart of Christianity. Not in the first place a doctrine or morality. But the certainty that we, frail and temporary people, are known and loved by God. It can hardly be imagined. But how, if this is true, can we not rejoice? Of course this does not answer all questions or solve every problem. But we know from experience how much this makes us happy, gives meaning and direction to our existence: that we are known, appreciated and loved by other people. That we are not nobody. Exactly that is the joy of the Gospel: to know that we are not only by those who are near to use, but by God Himself, the Creator and source of all that exists. Known and loved and radically accepted. Not without reason did Pope Francis call his first Exhortation “The Joy of the Gospel”. And not without reason did he, last Tuesday in Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome, at the start of the great jubilee, open the door, the door of God’s mercy. Like we will do tomorrow here, and in Brussels and in Nivelles and in all cathedrals and jubilee churches in the entire world.

No, God is not an indifferent God. No arbitrary power, only concerned with Himself. We people are worth everything to Him. That is why He ask that one thing: that we are also not indifferent to each other. Especially not to those who stand at the side and do not matter, the poor and vulnerable, and the countless who are fleeing from war and violence. That we respect all life, no matter how small and vulnerable. Respect for the religious and philosophical convictions of every man. Respect and care for the planet we inhabit. We are also responsible for future generations. This world can be a hard place. This is what the Gospel asks from us: that we do not became hard and indifferent, insensitive and merciless. Because that is our greatest danger today: the globalisation of indifference.

This is the Gospel that the Church proclaims. The Gospel of God’s tenderness. And this is not just rhetoric. He is committed to the very end. And His Son, Jesus Christ, became one of us, vulnerable and defenseless as a child of men. A miracle of humanity. A love to which there is only one answer: to love in our turn. We appreciate and respect each other. Proclaiming the mercy of God and calling for respect and love, that is the mission of the Church. This is the place it searches out in our pluralistic and modern society. Nothing more, and nothing less. In a secularised culture, she can and must make her voice heard. And so much more than a religious fundamentalism that at this time constitutes a very real threat.

Not a Church that looks inward, but a Church that shares in the joys and sufferings of the world. Sympathetic to the plight of humans, of any kind. This was the message of the Second Vatican Council. Last Tuesday, the feast day of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, it was exactly fifty years since the closing of the Ecumenical Council. The Constitution on the Church in the world begins with these impressive and moving words: “The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ. Indeed, nothing genuinely human fails to raise an echo in their hearts.”

This is the vocation that the Church has received from God. To that we want to dedicate our best forces at the task entrusted to me today. I with you, and you with me. As we heard from John: no extravagant or spectacular projects. But a search for a consistent experience of the Gospel. And with that one certainty: that we are known and loved by God. That is our joy and faith today.

+Jozef De Kesel
Mechelen, 12 December 2015″

The tension between doctrine and reality – Cardinal Marx’s intervention

Earlier today we had a short Synod intervention from Cardinal Danneels, and now one of the longest, from Cardinal Reinhard Marx. It’s also one of the most fearless, as the German cardinal talks about some of the topics that he has been criticised heavily for: Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics and graduality.

Like the intervention of Bishop Bode, Cardinal Marx’s text is based heavily on the life experiences of the faithful concerned. And while it is essential for the Church to meet people where they are, I do miss the essential aspect of our faith: that is a revelation faith. Its foundation is objective truth, and while the way we relate to that truth, communicate it and help people achieve it (acknowledged by Cardinal Marx as he discusses our call to holiness) can and should vary according to circumstances, that truth does and can not. In the debate about Communion for divorced and remarried faithful (a circumstance consequently referred to in this intervention as only possible when we are talking about civil divorce and marriage) this is something that we must keep in mind. It defines what we can do pastorally.

Anyway, the intervention. The original German text is here.

marxFifty years ago, the Second Vatican Council once again made the Gospel a source of inspiration for the life of individuals and society. The same is true for the “Gospel of the family” (Pope Francis). In the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes (GS) it developed a doctrine of marriage which was further developed by the Popes after the Council. Even when the Council did not the answer all the questions which concern us now, it did lay a theological foundation which helps us to answer our current questions.

The Council understands marriage as an “intimate partnership of married life and love” (GS, 48) and develops the doctrine of marriage in the context of a theology of love. The love between man and woman “is directed from one person to another through an affection of the will; it involves the good of the whole person, and therefore can enrich the expressions of body and mind with a unique dignity, ennobling these expressions as special ingredients and signs of the friendship distinctive of marriage”. This love “pervades the whole of their lives: indeed by its busy generosity it grows better and grows greater” (GS, 49). The Council emphasises that this love between man and woman requires the institutional and legal framework of marriage, to develop and keep it permanently in good and bad days. Not in the last place does the institution of marriage serve the wellbeing of children (cf. GS, 50).

With the help of this theology of love and also the theology of the covenant, which can only be insufficiently outlined here, the Council succeeded in making the sacramentality of marriage understandable again. Marital love becomes an image of the love of Christ for His Church and the place where the love of Christ becomes tangible. In order to also express this connection between the divine and the human verbally, the Council speaks of the covenant of marriage. Finally, the indissoluble fidelity is an efficacious sign of Christ’s love in this world.

In the end, the Council sees human sexuality as an expression of love and suggests a new direction in sexual ethics. “This love is uniquely expressed and perfected through the appropriate enterprise of matrimony. The actions within marriage by which the couple are united intimately and chastely are noble and worthy ones. Expressed in a manner which is truly human, these actions promote that mutual self-giving by which spouses enrich each other with a joyful and a ready will” (GS, 49). To this richness belong without doubt also, but not only, the conception and education of children. For the Council fathers expressly emphasise that marriage without children also “persists as a whole manner and communion of life, and maintains its value and indissolubility”(GS, 50).

It is this Synod of Bishops’ task to deepen and develop this theology of respectively love and the covenant, which the Council has established in basic features, but which is not yet completely reflected in canon law, with an eye on the current challenges in the pastoral care regarding marriage and family. I would like to focus on two challenges: marriage preparation and guidance, and the question of reasonably dealing with those faithful whose marriage has failed and those – not a few – who have divorced and are civilly remarried.

It is no coincidence that the Council speaks of growing in love. That is true for living together in marriage; but it is equally so for the time of preparation for marriage. Pastoral care should be developed which shows clearer than before the travelling aspect of being Christian, also in relation to marriage and family. We are all called to holiness (cf. Lumen gentium, 39), but the road towards holiness only ends on the Last Day, when we stand before the judgement seat of Christ. This path is not always straight and does not always lead directly to the intended goal. In other words: the path of life of the spouses has times of intense feelings and times of disappointment, of successful joint projects and failed plans, times of closeness and times of alienation. Often the difficulties and crises, when they are overcome together, are the ones that strengthen and consolidate the marriage bond. The Church’s marriage preparation and guidance can not be determined by moralistic perfectionism. It should not be a program of “all or nothing”. What is more important is that we see the various life situations and experiences of people in a differentiated way. We should look less at what has not (yet) been achieved in life, or perhaps what has thoroughly failed, but more at what has already been achieved. People are usually not motivated by the raised finger to go forward on the road to holiness, but by the outstretched hand. We need pastoral care which values the experiences of people in loving relationships and which is able to awaken a spiritual longing. The sacrament of marriage should in the first place be proclaimed as a gift that enriches and strengthens marriage and family life, and less as an ideal that can not be attained by human achievement. As indispensable as lifelong loyalty is for the development of love, so the sacramentality of marriage should not be reduced to its indissolubility. It is a comprehensive relationship which unfolds.

The moment of receiving the sacrament of marriage is indeed the beginning of the way. The sacrament not only happens at the moment of marrying, in which both spouses express their mutual love and loyalty, but unfolds in the road they take together. Giving shape to common life in marriage is the responsibility of the spouses. The Church’s pastoral care can and should support the spouses, but must respect their responsibility. We should give more space to the consciences of the spouses in proclamation and pastoral care. Certainly, it is the Church’s duty to form the consciences of the faithful, but people’s judgement of conscience can not be replaced. That is especially true in situations in which the spouses must make a decision in a conflict of values, such as when the openness to conceiving children and the preservation of marriage and family life are in conflict with each other.

But appreciative and supportive pastoral care can also not prevent all marriages from failing, spouses from ending their covenant of life and love and separating. The new process of establishing the nullity of a marriage can also not cover all cases in the right way. Often the end of a marriage is neither the result of human immaturity, nor of a lack of willingness in marriage. Dealing with faithful whose marriages have failed and who, often enough, entered a new civil marriage after a civil divorce, remains therefore a pressing pastoral problem in many parts of the world. For many faithful – including those whose marriages are intact – it is a matter of credibility of the Church. I know this from many conversations and letters.

Thankfully, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI left it no doubt that civilly divorced and remarried faithful are also part of the Church, and repeatedly invited them to take an active part in the life of the Church. It is therefore our duty to develop welcoming pastoral care for these faithful and involve them ever more in the life of communities. To them the Church has to witness of the love of Christ, which applies in the first place to those who have failed in their intentions and efforts. For “it is not those who are in health that have need of the physician, it is those who are sick” (Matt. 9:12). It is the mission of the Church to heal the wounds caused by the failing of a marriage and the separation of spouses, and show them that God is with them, also in these difficult times. Can we really heal without allowing the sacrament of Reconciliation?

With an eye on the civilly divorced and remarried faithful who take an active part in community life, many faithful ask why the Church refuses them, without exception, participation in sacramental Communion. Many in our communities can not understand how one can be in full community with the Church and at the same time excluded from the sacraments of Confession and the Eucharist. The fact that civilly divorced and remarried faithful objectively live in adultery and as such are in contradiction to what is presented emblematically in the Eucharist, the faithfulness of Christ to His Church, is given as reason. But does this answer do justice to the situation of those concerned? And is it sacramental-theologically compelling? Can people who are considered to be in a situation of grave sin truly have the feeling of belonging completely to us?

In the German Bishops’ Conference we have also occupied ourselves intensively over the past years with the theology and pastoral ministry of marriage and family. We took the Holy Father’s assignment seriously, to think about the topic, discuss and deepen it, in the time between the Synods. The German Bishops’ Conference has organised a day of study about this, together with the Bishops’ Conferences of France and Switzerland, in May of 2015, the contributions of which have also been published. In the theological faculties too, the topics were taken up and debated in biblical-theological, exegetical, canonical and pastoral-theological perspectives. Additionally, there were conversations with theologians and publications. We have learned that the theological work about this must continue in the future.

About the topic of civilly divorced and remarried faithful the German bishops have themselves published in June of last year further considerations and question, which I would like to outline briefly.

Someone who, after the failure of a marriage has entered into a new civil marriage, from which often children were born, has a moral responsibility to the new partner and the children which he or she can not denounce without being burdened with new guilt. Even if a renewal of the previous relationship were possible – which it generally isn’t –  the person concerned finds himself in an objective moral dilemma from which there is no clear moral theological way out. The advise to refrain from sexual acts in the new relationship seems unreasonable to many. There is also the question if sexual acts can be judged in isolation from the context of life. Can we assess sexual acts in a second civil marriage as adultery without exception? Independent of an assessment of the particular situation?

In sacramental-theological regard two things should be considered. Can we, in all cases and with a clear conscience, exclude faithful who are civilly divorced and remarried from the sacrament of Reconciliation? Can we refuse them the reconciliation with God and the sacramental experience of the mercy of God even when they sincerely regret their guilt in the failure of marriage? Regarding the question of allowing sacramental Communion, it must be considered that the Eucharist not only makes present the covenant of Christ with His Church, but also always renews it and strengthens the faithful on their way to holiness. The two principles of admission to the Eucharist, namely the testimony of unity of the Church and the participation in the means of grace, can at times be at odds with one another. In the Declaration Unitatis redintegratio (N. 8), the Council says: “Witness to the unity of the Church very generally forbids common worship to Christians, but the grace to be had from it sometimes commends this practice”. Beyond ecumenism, this statement is also of fundamental pastoral importance. In his Apostolic Letter Evangelii gaudium the Holy Father adds, with reference to the teachings of the Fathers of the Church: “The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak. These convictions have pastoral consequences that we are called to consider with prudence and boldness” (N. 47).

Starting from the theological foundations established by the Second Vatican Council we should seriously consider the possibility – based on the individual case and not in a general way – of allowing civilly divorced and remarried faithful to receive the sacraments of Confession and Communion, when common life in the canonically valid marriage has definitively failed and this marriage can not be nullified, the commitments of this marriage are settled, there is regret for the guilt of the end of this marital common life and there is the honest will to live the second civil marriage in faith and raise the children in the faith.

Building up from reality – Bishop Bode’s intervention

It’s almost a week ago, but here is the translation of the intervention by Bishop Franz-Josef Bode. Reading it, it becomes clear that some of his points have been used in the German language groups’ report on Part II, which I shared in translation earlier.

Like Archbishop Koch before him, Bishop Bode bases his thought on his experiences as bishop and official in the German Bishops’ Conference, as he makes clear in his opening paragraph. While not averse to theology, he underlines that the Church must meet the people where they are, in their less-than-perfect situations and with their experiences, questions and feelings.

Bishop Bode has been criticised heavily, and while I share some of that criticism, it is important to recognise what he is doing here: asking questions about what the Church is doing. Is it really effective, he wonders, and do we achieve what we set out to do?

Read the German text here, and my translation below:

bode_purpur_240I have been a bishop now for four decades, and for 20 years of those I have been ordinary of Osnabrück. Since 2010 I have also been leading the pastoral commission of the German Bishops’ Conference, and before that I was the chairman of the youth commission for fourteen years. In that capacity I speak to you:

It is a great challenge for the Church to convey her high esteem of marriage, which as sacrament is a life fulfilment of the Church, to the people of our time. There where marriage succeeds as a lifelong Union, where this “eminently human” love is experienced “from one person to another through an affection of the will” (Gaudium et Spes, 49), where spouses remain faithful, remain inclined to one another, give life to and raise children and pass on the love received, there the Church is ever new and something more than the salt of the earth and the city on the mountain. “The Church is a blessing for the family and the family is blessing for the Church”, says the Instrumentum laboris (59).

In order to bring the Catholic understanding of marriage closer to the faithful and in extension to all people of good will, and convince them in a lasting way, it is crucial to respond to each person’s individual life story, to the realities of life and their histories. Man is a historical being. He always relates to us as formed by experience, never als a neutral recipient of a message that he needs to align to. This acknowledgement of his biography is not a pastoral strategy or a methodical trick. Rather, the acknowledgement of individual life histories is itself part of Catholic teaching. The Second Vatican Council, in the opening words of Gaudium et Spes speaks of it, that there is nothing genuinely human which does not raise an echo in their hearts (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 1). The Instrumentum laboris of this Synod takes on this thought when it speaks of “divine pedagogy” (39). Relating ever anew to the biography of people is an essential task, if the general and basic principles of a doctrine – especially the doctrines of marriage and family – want to have space and form in human lives. Thomas Aquinas explained the necessity of a concrete application, for example when he says, “To prudence belongs not only the consideration of reason, but also the application to action, which is the goal of practical reason” (STh II-II-47, 3: “ad prudentiam pertinet non solum consideratio rationis, sed etiam applicatio ad opus, quae est finis practicae rationis“). This application can, however, not succeed without including the circumstances in the concrete action.

Tying onto the history and form of life is in that regard not possible without going to the persons, to the people, understanding their thoughts and motives, and not without concretisation of the general guiding principles to the particular life situation as far as possible. That is also a service to the truth. “The faithful’s attitude towards people who have not yet come to an understanding of the importance of the Sacrament of Marriage is expressed primarily in a personal, friendly relationship which accepts another as he/she is, without judging, and seeks to meet his/her basic needs and, at the same time, witnessing to God’s love and mercy. It is important to be clearly aware that everyone is weak and that each person is a sinner like everyone else, yet not failing to affirm the blessings and values of a Christian marriage. Moreover, people need to become aware that in God’s plan the family is not a duty but a gift, and that today the decision to enter into the Sacrament of Marriage is not a foregone conclusion but something to be developed and a goal to be achieved” (Instrumentum laboris, 61). And it is always good to take particular aspects into account and deal with material conflicts. Often enough, it is a search for the “minus malum“, the lesser evil.

Not in the last place, we should see people as being on the road to something better, for the sake of a “joyful and optimistic proclamation of the truths of the faith concerning the family” (Instrumentum laboris, 79). So questions regarding the pastoral approach to marriage and family such as the following were raised:

  • Can we really convince couples who – not only in Germany – usually first live together outside of the marriage bond, of the value of marriage, when we uphold to them: You are living in grave sin?
  • Are we sufficiently aware of the chances which are there, when couples return to the Church after a long time, with the desire for a Church wedding? Do we maintain an “open doors” culture (cf. Evangelii gaudium, 47)? Do we offer them good and long marriage preparation, a path we travel together with them?
  • Do we offer sustained spiritual help and guidance to couples and families who, for various reasons, have a hard time integrating the Good News and the faith in their lives?
  • How do meet couples in relationship crises and breaking relationships? Do we accompany these people unconditionally or do we only exert additional pressure through moral teachings?
  • And not in the least: Do we show our sisters and brothers in Christ who have entered into a new relationship after the previous one ended that they too belong to the Church? A Church with open doors, a mother with an open heart (cf. Evangelii gaudium, 46)?
  • Do we actually see the individual cases sufficiently differentiated enough? Can access to the sacraments of Confession and Eucharist really be categorically denied in every case?

From this Synod, I especially hope that the results of our discussions will send out a clear signal of support for the beneficial efforts of the Holy Father and the salvation of people.

I thank all Synod father as well the auditors for what they have already done in this regard.

Rome, 10 October 2015

Franz-Josef Bode
Bishop of Osnabrück

Bishop Van Looy’s powerful Synod plea for service

Another day, another Belgian Synod intervention. Today it’s Bishop Luc Van Looy who makes a powerful plea for charity and service. It is, he says, the way towards hope and credibility. Read the Original Dutch text here, and my translation below:

Intervention on Part I, Chapter II
(“The Challenge of Poverty and Social Exclusion”)
and Chapter III
(“The Challenge of Migration”)
of the Instrumentum laboris

Rome, 6 October 2015

Bisschop Van LooyTo begin I would like to thank you, Holy Father, for a special sentence in Evangelii Gaudium. I am of the impression that this thought is of prime importance: “The Holy Spirit can be said to possess an infinite creativity, proper to the divine mind, which knows how to loosen the knots of human affairs, even the most complex and inscrutable” (EG 178). He can solve the complex problems of poor families, of people living in the margins, of people who have been separated because of war, and of those who have faith in each other. He can also loosen the knots of the Synod.

Migrant and refugee families suffer because of social exclusion. They live in poverty and can not take part in social life. It is hard to obtain civil rights in western countries. They have no income and are often not welcome in the area where they end up. Invisible suffering, poverty and anger are growing in our cities because of unemployment, especially among young people. We all know that commerce, industry, banks and technology are omnipresent today and that their free circulation knows no bounds. For people, on the other hands, there are strict boundaries. It is high time that we tell the world that people are the most important. We can not give up these migrant or refugee families and leave them to their own devices. How to give them credible hope? (EG 86).

In the parable the Samaritan is God Himself who invites the Christian communities to communicate His love to all people. Christians are not only touched by the destitute and wounded man on the side of the road, they actually help him and also bring him to the inn, which is to say: to the institution, to the Church, to the school and the hospital, and afterwards they also remain involved and keep an eye on him.

The Church has the means to be present in a very effective way for migrant and refugee families. With her international network she can, with the help of the experience of local Caritas organisations, create structures of solidarity which eliminate poverty and which make sure that ethical and social rules are respected.

Service, diakonia, is for the Church the way towards credibility. Thanks to the Second Vatican Council we have permanent deacons. Should we not focus more on the diaconate and service to help separated families? How to give hope to broken families, whatever the reason for their break may be? The cry of families in need must be heard by the Christian community and by the parishes. People in great need are loved by God, the Good Shepherd. They deserve our full attention, regardless of their origin, gender, age, social status, religion or the broken situation they find themselves in. As the Good Shepherd, Jesus went looking for the lost sheep, lost by accident or on purpose. Moses, too, went back to the unfaithful people to lead it to the promised land.

This leads us to the topic of mercy. Who are we to judge, to exclude people who live in situations which make unity impossible? Who are we not to use the means that we have to bring hope and joy to families who have lost all their rights because of war and poverty? We must start from the fact that God sent His Son to all people to save them, not to judge them. His mercy fills our hearts when we encounter actual people who have been excluded and live in exile. What they need is our love, which comes from the love that God has for us.

Msgr. Luc Van Looy
Bishop of Ghent
Chairman of Caritas Europe

From the front row – new interview with Archbishop Gänswein

An interesting interview in Christ & Welt, a weekly supplement to Die Zeit in Germany, with Archbishop Georg Gänswein yesterday. It sheds some interesting lights on recent developments in the Vatican, such as Pope Francis’ Christmas talk to the Curia, the Pope’s relationship with the media, the Synod and also retired Pope Benedict XVI and some personal touches. Worth a read:

Cgänswein&W: At Christmas Pope Francis caused some furore with his talk about fifteen diseases of the Roman Curia. You were seated directly next to the Pope. At what point did you stop counting?

Georg Gänswein: As Prefect of the Papal Household I sat, as ever on such occasions, at the Pope’s right. And as ever I had a copy of the talk in my briefcase, but I hadn’t had the time to read it beforehand. When the list of diseases began I thought to myself, “Now it’s going to be interesting”, and it became ever more interesting. I counted until the ninth disease…

What went through your head?

Normally the Pope uses the Christmas reception for the Curia to look back on the past year and look ahead to the coming one. It was different this time. Pope Francis preferred to hold up a mirror of conscience to the cardinals and bishops, among them a few who were retired…

Did you feel like it appealed to you?

Of course I asked myself, “Who does this concern? What disease affects you? What needs to be corrected?” At one point I had to think of my many moving boxes.

Do you mean the anecdote about the moving of a Jesuit with countless possessions? Francis had said that moving was a sign of the “disease of hoarding”.

Exactly. Since leaving the Apostolic Palace after the retirement of Pope Benedict in February of 2013 more than a few of my things are still in boxes in a storeroom. But I can’t see a sign of disease in that.

What did Pope Francis intend with this act of flagellation? It could be demotivating.

That is a question that many of my colleagues also asked. Pope Francis has been in office for almost two years now and knows the Curia pretty well. He obviously thought it necessary to speak clearly and to cause an examination of conscience.

What were the reactions?

It was a treat for the media, of course. During the talk I could already see the headlines: Pope castigates Curia prelates; Pope reads his coworkers the law! Sadly, outwardly it gave the impression that there was a rift between the Pope and the Curia. That impression is deceiving, and does not coincide with reality. But the address drowned that out.

Was the talk criticised internally?

The reactions ranged from surprise to shock and incomprehension.

Perhaps with Francis, the Curia needs to adjust to permanent spiritual exercises?

It has long been adjusted to that. Pope Francis makes no secret of his religious formation. He is a Jesuit, shaped through and through by the spirituality of the founder of his order, Saint Ignatius of Loyola.

What are your thoughts about Francis, two years after his election?

Pope Francis is a man who has made it clear from the outset that he deals differently with things that he sees differently. That is true for his choice of living, the car he drives, the entire process of audiences in general and especially for protocol. One could think that he was getting used to things in the beginning and wanted a significant degree of flexibility. By now it has become standard. The Holy Father is a man of extraordinary creativity and Latin American zest.

Many still ask where we are going?

If you listen attentively to the words of the Pope, you will hear a clear message in them. Nevertheless, the question continuously arises of where Francis wants to lead the Church, what is his goal?

One year ago you said, “We are still waiting for substantial standards.” Can these now be seen?

Yes, much more clearly than a year ago. Consider the Apostolic Letter  Evangelii gaudium. In it he has presented a compass for his pontificate. In addition he has published important documents and given major addresses over the course of the year, such as in Strasbourg for the European Parliament and the Council of Europe. Contours have become clearly visible and clear priorities were set.

Such as?

The most important priority is mission, evangelisation. This aspect is like a red thread. No internal navelgazing, no self-reference, but sharing the Gospel with the world. That is the motto.

Do you understand Francis George, the retired archbishop of Chicago, who criticised the fact that the words of the Pope are often ambivalent?

There have indeed been cases in which the Vatican spokesman had to clarify matters after specific publications. Corrections are necessary when certain statements lead to misunderstandings which can be collected from certain sites.

Does Francis have a better grip of the media than his predecessor Benedict?

Francis deals with the media offensively. He used them intensively and directly.

Also more skilful?

Yes, he uses them very skilfully.

Who are actually his closest advisors?

This questions always and consistently goes around. I don’t know.

With the Synods on the pastoral care for families this past and the coming autumn, Francis created a focal point. Especially the question of allowing divorced and remarried faithful access to the sacraments causes much disagreement. Some also have the impression that Francis is more concerned with pastoral care than with doctrine…

I do not share that impression. It creates an artificial opposition which does not exist. The Pope is the first guarantor and keeper of the doctrine of the Church and at the same the first shepherd, the first pastor. Doctrine and pastoral care are not in opposition, they are like twins.

Do the current and the retired Pope take opposite views in the debate about divorced and remarried Catholics?

I know of no doctrinal statements from Pope Francis which are contrary to the statements of his predecessor. That would be absurd too. It is one thing to emphasise the pastoral efforts more clearly because the situation requires it. It is something else entirely to make a change in teaching. I can only act pastorally sensitive, consistent and conscientious when I do so on the basis of full Catholic teaching. The substance of the sacraments is not left to the discretion of pastors, but has been given to the Church by the Lord. That is also and especially true for the sacrament of marriage.

Was there a visit of some cardinals to Benedict during the Synod, with the request that he intervene to rescue the dogma?

There has not been such a visit to Pope Benedict. A supposed intervention by the Pope emeritus is pure invention.

How does Benedict respond to the attempts by traditionalist circles to recognise him as an antipope?

It was not traditionalist circles who attempted that, but representatives of the theological profession and some journalists. Speaking of an antipope is simply stupid, and also irresponsible.  That goes in the direction of theological arson.

Recently there was excitement surrounding a contribution in the recently published fourth volume of the Collected Works of Joseph Ratzinger. The author changed some conclusions to the topic of the divorced and remarried in a stricter sense. Does Benedict want to involve himself with this in the Synod debate?

Not at all. The revision of said article from 1972 was completed and sent to the publisher long before the Synod. It must be remembered that every author has the right to make changes in his writings. Every informed person knows that Pope Benedict has not shared the conclusions of said contribution since 1981, which is more than 30 years! As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he has expressed this clearly in various comments.

The timing of the publication of the new edition to coincide with the Synod was then anything but happy…

The fourth volume of the Collected Works, in which the article is printed, was supposed to be published in 2013. The publication was delayed for various reasons and happened only in 2014. That a Synod on the topic of the family would take place at that time, was absolutely unforeseen when the planning of the publication of the separate volumes was made.

Upon his retirement, Benedict XVI said that he would be living “hidden from the world”. He continues to make appearances, however. Why?

When he is present at important Church events, it is because he is personally invited by Pope Francis, for example when he took part in the consistory of last February, the canonisation of John Paul II and John XXIII in April and also the beatification of Paul VI in October. He has also written a greeting for the inauguration of the Auditorium Maximum of the Pontifical Urbaniana University in Rome, which was named after him. Pope Benedict was invited for that, but did not accept that invitation.

In the greeting, which you read out on his behalf at the time, he however makes clear theological statements. “The elimination of truth is lethal for the faith,” he wrote.

The greeting was an impressive contribution to the topic of “Truth and Mission”. You could hear a pin drop, it was so quiet during the reading in the crowded auditorium. Content-wise, it was a theological classic. Pope Francis, who had received the text from Benedict beforehand, was much impressed and had thanked him for it.

Does Benedict sometimes speak about his retirement? Is he relieved?

He is at peace with himself and convinced that the decision was right and necessary. It was a decision of conscience that was well prayed and suffered over, and in that man stands alone before God.

You struggled with Benedict’s historical retirement in February of 2013. How do you look back on this step now?

It is true that the decision was difficult for me. It was not easy to accept it internally. I struggled to cope. The fight is now long since over.

You swore to be loyal to Benedict to the death. Does that also mean that you’ll remain at his side, and also in the Vatican?

On the day of his election as Pope I promised to help him in vita et in morte. Of course I did not take a retirement into account at that time. But the promise is still true and remains valid.

Bishops should be shepherds. As archbishop in the Roman Curia, do you sometimes feel like a shepherd without a flock?

Yes, sometimes. But I am getting more and more invitations for confirmations, anniversary Masses and other celebrations. Initially I responded somewhat defensive to those and accepted only a few. But that has changed lately. Direct contact with the faithful is very important. That is why I accept pastoral duties whenever it is possible and compatible with my other obligations. That is both good and necessary. And it is also the best medication against one of the diseases of the Curia mentioned by Pope Francis: the danger of becoming a bureaucrat.

The peace of Christ – Bishop Van Looy’s letter for Christmas

Ghent’s Bishop Luc Van Looy devotes his Christmas letter to the peace of this period. Peace in ourselves, but also the peace we are obliged to share with those who need it most, especially the homeless, the displaced and the refugees.

van looyTo all people of good will
Christmas letter from Msgr. Luc Van Looy, Bishop of Ghent

Christmas truce

The commemorations of the start of the First World War remind us of what our ancestors did to achieve peace. In the past year we could learn much from the media about this dark page in our history. At the same time we are continuously confronted with the horrible situations in which many people live today, because of the violence of war. The UN speaks of 28 million people without a home and 10 million refugees in the world at this moment. Among these people there are a great many children, especially since those countries in which war now rages have a culture of families with many children. In 2013, 15,840 people asked for asylum in Belgium, people mostly from eastern European and African countries.

We can’t take comfort in the thought that these things happen in distant countries. We can’t remain blind to the situation of so many displaced persons in our towns and cities: homeless, squatters, people without a house, who are completely dependent on social services for their food and clothes. Perhaps we et to easily rid of our duty by giving some small alms or donating to some project for children in Africa or Latin America. A child in London asked, “Why would I go to my mother’s when there is no electricity of water there?” These people need our love, just like our material support.

Pope Francis sees in these “new forms of poverty and vulnerability … the suffering Christ”. “The homeless, the addicted, refugees, indigenous peoples, the elderly who are increasingly isolated and abandoned, and many others” all call to mind the suffering Christ. The image of breaking the bread and pouring the wine as His body and blood are irrevocable signs of the total givenness of Christ. Pope Francis calls for generous empathy out of that union with Christ. Referring to himself, he says, “Migrants present a particular challenge for me, since I am the pastor of a Church without frontiers” (cf. Evangelii Gaudium 210).

Christmas is an ideal period for special focus on these social problems. Mary and Joseph also failed to find shelter for the birth of Jesus. In addition, they were forced to flee with Him to Egypt. Herod did not recognise the Messiah in this child; he was not interested in the person, but to his own position as steward. It is our duty to focus on the person and not to judge or generalise based on race or culture, religion or ancestry, poverty or wealth, orientation or age. The incarnation of Christ shows us that every human being deserves attention. Jesus comes among the people. He joins in their conversations and speaks with authority, but at the same time He listens to their concerns. He has special attention for the deprived, the sick, the poor, the children. His attention is for the sinners; He lets the adulterous woman go, to ultimately praise her to the expense of the host. He is a man among men. He did not take pride in His descent. On the contrary, He became the servant of all.

In the social unrest that we have witnessed recently, we need to distinguish what is important. Here too, man needs to be in the centre instead of mere power play. Here the Pope also speaks: “Conflict cannot be ignored or concealed. It has to be faced. But if we remain trapped in conflict, we lose our perspective, our horizons shrink and reality itself begins to fall apart. In the midst of conflict, we lose our sense of the profound unity of reality” (Evangelii Gaudium 226).

Christmas teaches us to bring peace. “He is the peace between us” (Eph. 2:14), and He paid the price for it with His blood on the cross. People and cultures are diverse and you can try to achieve peace through negotiations, but nothing is as strong as the unity of Spirit. Unity is fundamental and transcends all conflict. Looking for a synthesis, one must depart from the desire for unity among all people. It is a matter of appreciating the other, esteeming him – more than yourself – and recognising and accepting the dignity of all. This attitude can defeat all partisanship and conflict. No one is more man because he or she was born in some privileged culture or in a certain context. Equality flows from the gift of life itself, which everyone has received from the same Father.

Dear friends, states of war, conflict, migration and poverty can not leave us unmoved. There are many initiatives in this time of Christmas to ease the fate of others, to share the warmth of the community. In this time everyone may experience that Christ has come to bring peace and unity. But it is important that this attention is not limited to the period of Christmas, but spreads throughout the year. The service to people and the world – we call this te diaconate – is an essential aspect of our Christianity.

I wish for the year 2015 to be a year of solidarity and service for all of you, of friendship which resolves conflicts, of peace in families. May the peace of Christ for every man be even stronger than just a “Christmas truce”, so that it may be a new start wherever necessary. For it was God’s intention to give everyone peace, when He sent His Son into the world.

Merry Christmas and a happy new year.”