In the run-up to global abuse meeting, Bishop van den Hende and Dr. Deetman look to its outcome

Thursday will see the beginning of perhaps the most charged and certainly most anticipated Vatican event in some time: the bishops’ summit on abuse, in which the presidents of the world’s bishops’ conferences, representatives of religious movements and  the heads of a number of curia dicasteries will meet over the course of three days to discuss a unified approach to sexual abuse within the Catholic Church.  Expectations about its outcome are high, although they may be too high considering the brief length of the meeting and its focus, not on formulating unfified policies – these often already exist – but on getting every single bishop on the same time. After this week, no bishop should have the excuse of saying he did not know of any abuse or how to deal with it.

On behalf of the Dutch Bishops’ Conference, Bishop Hans van den Hende will attend the meeting in his capacity as the body’s president. The bishop of Rotterdam already met with the pope in December, together with Dr. Wim Deetman, who headed the Dutch investigation into the abuse that took place over past decades. This audience took place out of the pope’s desire to be informed about what the Dutch bishops had done to combat abuse and to compensate the victims. Some have seen that approach as an example for the rest of the world. Bishop van den Hende, in a recent interview, agrees with that, saying, “The joint approach of bishops and religious as it took shape in the Netherlands, in combination with an independent investigation and an independent procedure, is, I think, a good example of recognition and commitment with regards to the victims.”

About the expectations of the summit and its outcome, Bishop van den Hende is catious.

“Much will depend on the results of the meeting, that is to say if the goals established by the pope will be fully achieved. You can only come to plans of actions out of the recoginition of the seriousness of the abuse and the joint willingness to come to a true commitment. I am not sure if this can be achieved in the short timespan granted to the upcoming meeting, but it is necessary to take true steps forward in the world Church.”

In another interview, Dr. Deetman showed himself a bit more optimistic:

“I don’t know what the pope plans to do, he did not express himself about that to me. But if Pope Francis, in those four days in Rome, is able to convince the bishops that the abuse is a major problem which concerns the entire Church, and which requires a thorough approach, the meeting will in a sense already have been successful. Then something can be done on a global scale. That also means that a second meeting must soon follow.”

Dr. Deetman, shown at left while meeting Pope Francis, believes that the Dutch investigation and program of compensation is indeed an example of how things should be done in other locations as well.

“You must outsource such an investigation [into abuse]. Multidisciplinary and with free access to the archives. I emphasised that to the pope. Also very important: it concerns facts. Make sure that nothing remains swept under the carpet. If you want to properly investigate what went wrong in the various Church provinces and in the Vatican itself, it must be independent, and the results must be made public, with anjustification of the methods of investigation. Without any doubt.”

But Dr. Deetman also urged for caution:

“You must be careful, also when it concerns perpetrators. We have had to conclude that someone had been accused, but it later turned out that he or she could impossible have done it. You do damage someone’s reputation and name. And something else: something may be ‘plausible’, but even then there all kinds of degrees of plausibility”.

This is a good reminder. In recent headline cases in which prelates have been accussed of knowing of the actions of abusers – I mention a Cardinal Wuerl or Farrell – conclusions are drawn before the facts have been studied. This is not something that should be encouraged, although it is understandable when it comes to such horrible acts.

Photo credit: [2] Servizio Fotografico – L’Osservatore Romano

Cardinal Müller in the Netherlands – On forced retirement (of sorts), the Church’s response to secularism and criticising the Pope

“I am now simply a cardinal without a specific assignment. That is somewhat unusual. Bishops normally remain active until they are 75. The Pope apparently has better advisors than me at his disposal. As priest, bishop and cardinal I can keep serving the Church as usual. I give lectures and write books.”

Words from Cardinal Gerhard Müller in a recent interview for Dutch newspaper Trouw. The 70-year-old German prelate has been Prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for almost 18 months now, but still looks with mild amazement at his letting go as the head of the premier Curia dicastery. He assumes that some of the pope’s “so-called friends” made him believe certain things, which let to his early retirement. Perhaps, the cardinal, wonders, his “attempts at interpreting the document Amoris laetitia in an orthodox way was not well received either”.

But Cardinal Müller is not a bitter man.

“My sense of self-worth and my identity do not depend on an office in the Church. I have achieved a few things theologically. Forty students received their doctorates with me. In total, 120 students graduated under me. I have written books. I don’t think that is all insignificant.”

Early last week, Cardinal Müller was in the Netherlands to speak at a congress about recently canonised Pope Paul VI and Vatican II. Katholiek Nieuwsblad (which, as an aside, has recently been expanding its media work abroad, providing translated articles to Crux) has published excerpts from the cardinal’s comments. One snippet, which was shared on social media, was taken by some as a critique on Pope Francis’ focus on certain issues. Reality is a but more nuanced, although Cardinal Müller, in the aforementioned Trouw interview, did not shy away from such criticism.

At the conference, organised in ‘s-Hertogenbosch by the CRK (Contact Rooms Katholieken), Cardinal Müller said:

“We can not make the mistake that, as the world becomes more secular, we only provide such answers. The Church is not just important because of her answers to social and environmental problems. Those are secondary matters. The first and foremost task of the Church is to bring people to God. He who is with God can contribute to the development of society from there. We can not replace the Church of Jesus Christ, the sacraments, with a social organisation.

And later:

“We can not make the mistake of responding to the secularisation  of the world with a secularisation of the Church. The Church must be a visible sign of a higher reality, and bear witness that man has a higher calling, to see God amidst the community of saints. That is the greatest calling of man.”

Returning to the issue of criticism, in the Trouw interview reporter Stijn Fens asked Cardinal Müller about the accusation, from among others Cardinal Wim Eijk, that the pope is causing confusion by refusing to offer clarity in the case of Communion for divorced and remarried faithful. Cardinal Müller answered:

“Yes, there is a great confusion in the Church at this time. The reason is that the relationship between the doctrine of the Church and the pastoral care for people in difficult situations is not clear. You can’t accompany and help faithful when you start from the wrong basis. We all know that there are people who are in a bad marriage through no fault of their own.

You see, a priest is like a doctor who cares for souls in the name of Jesus Christ. But a good doctor can only offer help when he prescribes the correct medication. You can’t comfort a patient and say, “Listen, you have broken a bone, so I’ll slap a band-aid on it.” You must use the right medication. That means, then, that a priest must explain doctrine in a clear way, whether people accept it or not.

What happens now is that those who are out to “improve” Catholic doctrine and partly falsify it, are not being disciplined. While others, who are clearly loyal to the Word of Christ, are being disregarded as “rigid” and “Pharisaic”. Is that a way to lead a Church?”

Whatever one may think of Pope Francis and his actions – and I do not consider myself to be among his detractors – it is hard to deny that the confusion described by Cardinal Müller – and others with him – exists. But, I wonder, is it up to the Pope alone to resolve this? Of course, when people are confused by his statements, it is not unreasonable to ask for clarification. But, as Cardinal Müller has asserted in the past, we must read papal statements in continuity with the teachings that came before. In that respect, it becomes an obligation to read them in an orthodox way, as the cardinal has tried with Amoris laetitia. Past doctrine does not suddenly become invalid just because the pope who promulgated it is no longer alive. So when we are faced with questions regarding communion, divorce, marriage or whatever matter of doctrine or pastoral care we like, we do ourselves and the persons involved a disservice if we look no further than one document or statement. The Code of Canon law, the social teachings of the Church, even, dare I say it, the Gospels (to name but a few sources) offer clarity and explanations and indications on how to interpret what we may not understand immediately. That is a duty for all Catholics, not just the Pope. 

In a more lengthy interview that was published in the printed version of Katholiek Nieuwsblad on Friday, Cardinal Müller also shared some thoughts about the Netherlands and the state of the Church there. Asked about the reasons for the extreme and rapid secularisation here, he said:

“The Netherlands is one of the countries which has understood the Council as a sort of liberalisation or secularisation of the Church. But in reality the Council had a further Christianisation of society as its goal.”

But hope always remains:

“There may still be a new flourishing. We must pray for it and bear good witness. I hope and pray that a new spring for the Church may perhaps begin in the Netherlands.”

Photo credit: Jan Peeters/Katholiek Nieuwsblad

The Church grows, if slowly

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

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

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

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

Bishop de Korte’s election advice – the problems of voting Catholic in the Netherlands

While bishops usually tend to avoid giving voting advice, at least when it comes to specific parties, Bishop Gerard de Korte of ‘s-Hertogenbosch recently did do so on a personal title. In an interview with Katholiek Nieuwsblad he said,

“As bishops we realise that you can’t say that, if you are Catholic, there is a single party to vote for. From a Catholic perspective, something can be said in favour of all parties.”

But the bishop makes one exception to this rule. Geert Wilders’ PVV, which has ideas which are “contrary to the Catholic idea about a just society. They way that they pit populations against one another, abandon the freedom the religion, attack the rule of law – “fake parliament”, “fake judges”… These are things that should make us very reserved.”

The PVV continues to score in the opinion polls, also among Catholics, and Bishop de Korte’s remarks have had their share of criticism. But while the bishop’s comments focussed on the positives to be found in irtually all parties, the criticism focussed on those elements in party’s programs which are incompatible with Catholic teaching. How, critics asked, could any Catholic in good conscience vote for a party which promotes anti-life measures such as abortion and euthanasia? As I mentioned in my recent article for The Catholic Herald, only two parties, both Christian, are pro-life: the Christian Union and the SGP, although it must be added that the PVV is at least hesitant about further liberalisation on these topics.

This is a valid criticism, and a Catholic vote must take the position of parties on these (and other) topics seriously. But Bishop de Korte is not saying that all positions of all parties, except those of the PVV, should be supported by Catholics. On the contrary, he merely acknowledges that all parties promote positive aspects which a Catholic can get behind, while, although he does not say so explicitly, they may also support things a Catholic should oppose. There is no clear black or white when it comes to casting a Catholic vote in these elections.

Why single out the PVV, then? Are their positions more abhorent than those of other parties? The tone of their way of doing politics is certainly not one we should promote, and their singling out of parts of the population and disrespect for the rule of law when it does not agree with their positions are indeed problematic. For Bishop de Korte these seem to be decisive factors. For others, like myself, the respect for life (both born and unborn) may be equally decisive, and in that context the left-wing parties such as GroenLinks and SP are just as undeserving of my vote. Singling out the PVV is too simplistic: no party is perfect, and when you say that  “something can be said in favour of all parties,” an honest reading wil also show that that includes the PVV.

Bishop de Korte gave a personal opinion, the reasoning of which I do not fully agree with, although I share his decision not to vote for the PVV. But that is my opinion. Others may reach another conclusion in good conscience, based on the priorities they focus on. As long as it impossible to cast a vote which is in full agreement with Catholic teaching, this is the situation we are stuck with.

In De Kesel vs the Fraternity, a few small specks of light

In the two weeks since the blunt announcement that the Archdiocese of Mechelen-Brussels would be discontinuing all its relations with the Fraternity of the Holy Apostle, there has been much silence from said archdiocese. This despite the debate that erupted about the topic, in which commenters were almost unanimously opposed to the decision.

But despite a lack of official and public comments, Archbishop Jozef De Kesel has met with a delegation of laity, and from this some developments have emerged, Katholiek Nieuwsblad and La Libre Belgique report. Sadly, the decision of cutting all ties with the Fraternity remains, but the archbishop has had to accept a setback: dozens of people have appealed the decision, forcing at least a month’s respite. Originally, the archdiocese had announced to sever all ties by the end of June, in other words: today.

There was more positive news in the meeting: the priests attached to the church of St. Catherine can remain there while Archbishop De Kesel is in office (and, one would hope, after that). On the other hand, the archbishop is also open to another diocese, in Belgium or abroad, taking on canonical responsibility for the Fraternity. How likely that is, considering that his decision was apparently made in full agreement with the other Belgian bishops and Rome, remains anyone’s guess.

The 200-strong parish of Saint Catherine’s has extended an invitation to Archbishop De Kesel to come and visit, an invitation he has promised to accept once the storm has died down.

“An uphill marathon” – Cardinal Eijk after the Synod

In a press conference in Rome, snippets of which were released by Katholiek Nieuwsblad and rkkerk.nl, Cardinal Eijk spoke about the Synod of Bishops in which he participated as the sole Dutch Synod father, calling it an uphill marathon because of the workload and long days. Below I share some quotes, in which the cardinal comments on some of the issues that were widely reported, such as the alleged fighting between parties among the Synod fathers:

“It sometimes seemed as if we were contantly fighting, but that is not how I experienced it. The Pope had asked to speak in parresia, that is to say with great frankness, and that is what happened, both in the plenary meetings and in the smaller language groups. Regarding some questions it became clear that there were different visions, but there was room for that.”

About changes in the Church’s approach to marriage, Cardinal Eijk stated once again that the doctrine of the Church was not going to change. Marriage preparation, however, was much emphasised as a topic that the Church needed to develop.

“Pope Francis himself has said several times that he will not change the Church’s teachings and that that was not the goal of the Synod. The topic of the Synod is the pastoral care towards marriage and family. An important conclusion of this Synod is that the preparation for a religious marriage must be well developed. For example, in Italy there are extensive programs for marriage preparation, and in the Archdiocese of Utrecht, too, there is the intention of intensifying marriage preparation. Before people enter into a marriage in the Church, they must know well what this means. With a marriage according to her teaching, which is based on the words of Jesus himself, the Church asks much of spouses, but they can also rely on God giving them the required strength and mercy.”

And there it is again, the debate about Communion for divorced and remarried faithful…

“It is good to emphasise once again that divorced and remarried faithful do not need to be outside the Church. The Church is also there for them, and God’s grace also comes to them in different way than through Holy Communion. Hearing and reading the Word of God and prayer are sources of grace.”

The Synod is not perfect, and nothing it does carries magisterial weight. Only the Holy Father’s Apostolic Exhortation, if it appears, does. The cardinal summarised what the Synod did do:

“As Synod Fathers we are certainly not perfect, and in that sense the Synod is also not perfect. But the Pope is the guarantee of unity in the Church and as faithful we can rely on the Holy Spirit leading God’s Church. Although the doctrine of the Church will not change, there are certainly improvements possible concerning fruitful pastoral care regarding marriage and family.”

And finally, Cardinal Eijk had to face the question about that leaked letter from a group of cardinal to the Pope, in which they expressed their concerns about the new form of the Synod. Ultimately, the cardinal chose not provide and answer:

“I do not think that I should discuss my private correspondence with the Holy Father. So I will neither deny nor confirm that I signed that letter.”

Mistake or misrepresentation? Bishop Liesen on the Christmas song confusion

Yesterday, Bishop Jan Liesen, holding the liturgy portfolio in the Dutch bishops’ conference, wrote a letter about the confusion surrounding popular Christmas songs in the liturgy. In the piece, which was published in Katholiek Nieuwsblad and on the conference’s website rkkerk.nl, the bishop confirms what many had already suspected: Publisher of Mass booklets, Berne Heeswijk, and especially director Fr. Joost Jansen, spoke nonsense when they said that the bishops had forbidden the use of such songs as ‘Silent Night’ in the liturgy of Christmas.

Bishop Liesen writes:

“This statement is not true and has caused much unrest. […] The Christmas song question is not new. In 2001 the Roman Congregation for Divine Worship decided that liturgical songs in the vernacular need the approval of both the bishops’ conference and the Holy See. To properly introduce this measure a list of songs for the liturgy was created and at the same a period of transition was sought. On the request of and in consultation with publisher Berne the Dutch bishops received such a transition period: for two years a number of songs could be used in the liturgy, even if they were not (yet) included in the list. It was agreed with Berne that the publisher would abide by the approved songs. This agreement was signed, among others, by Fr. Jansen. To be clear: the list of approved songs is still in development and is continuously expanded with new songs; both theologians and musicians are working on this. Traditional Christmas songs are also suggested.”

He adds in a subsequent paragraph that all people involved in the publication of Mass booklets – among them Fr. Jansen (pictured below) – were informed in June of this year that the so-called ‘Christmas traditionals’ may now be printed in the back of these booklets.

All this puts the publisher’s earlier statements – that the bishops had forbidden the use of such songs, and that they had petitioned Rome to issue this ban – in a new light. Simply put: he was talking nonsense. There never has been a ban, and certainly not one planned by the bishops, and the traditional popular Christmas songs may still be used – in their proper place – on Christmas Eve.

Sadly, no correction is yet to be found on the publisher’s website… which makes me wonder: was this an honest mistake or a wilful misrepresentation of facts. For one in the business of publishing, such a misunderstanding of agreements made and signed is a very serious one…

Bishop Liesen concludes his letter as follows:

“Part of that treasure of songs, to which many faithful are justifiably attached, are many Christmas songs. The bishops, too, enjoy singing them and informed Berne on 21 June that these songs are very much suited to be published in the back of the Mass booklets, so that they may be sung at Christmas.”

Photo credit: [2] Jeroen Appels/Van Assendelft

A final word about the case of Fr. Huisintveld, painting a clearer picture of why Cardinal Eijk acted correctly

Questions from Katholiek Nieuwsblad to Cardinal Wim Eijk’s  spokesman, Hans Zuijdwijk, reveal that the cardinal has been far from the legalistic tyrant that the media and his opponents made him out to be in the case of Fr. Harry Huisintveld’s invalid Mass and the subsequent sanctions imposed on him.

Before taking the steps to sanction to the Dominican priest, Cardinal Eijk  contacted the superior of the order in the Netherlands, Friar René Dinklo (pictured), and asked him to withdraw Fr. Huisintveld from the parish where the liturgical abuse took place, in order to spare him a dishonourable discharge by the cardinal. The Dominican superior refused to do so.

Explaining his motives further, Friar Dinklo declared to support Fr. Huisintveld in content, although he considers his actions to have been “tactically unwise”.

“In the runup to the Maundy Thursday celebration, Father Huisintveld, together with a small preparation group drawn from the faith community, searched in an authentic way how in the meaning of what we celebrate on Maundy Thursday could be made understandable for the churchgoers in the liturgy. […] That is a very valued approach.”

Ugh. If any more evidence was needed to show what’s wrong with the Dutch Dominicans… If there is a perceived need among the faithful to receive a better explanation of any given faith subject or doctrine, you fulfill that need by reflecting that topic or dogma truthfully and completely, as the Church has tasked you to do. You don’t go and change the content and language of it to fit your own personal opinions and needs.

In the meantime, Fr. Huisintveld has displayed his personal faith in the media, a faith that is really not Catholic, no matter what he personally thinks it is (for example, he stated that Christ did not die on the Cross “out of His own free will, or for our sins”. Mr. Zuijdwijk rightly commented that such a statement perplexes him as a Catholic). As I have said earlier in different contexts: we don’t  decide what’s Catholic, the Church does and has.

An ugly situation. Let’s hope this is the end of it, and that everyone will see the events as what they are: not some excessive expression of authority against a man’s personal freedom, but a necessary precaution to protect the liturgy of the Church and, most importantly, the content it expresses: our faith and salvation.

Photo credit: kloosterzwolle.nl

Hope at the Catholic Youth Day – the Catholic voice stirring?

A short while ago I wrote about my concerns about the Catholic voice in the media in the Netherlands. I especially focussed on the lack of unity and the tendency towards infighting which characterises the Catholic presence on  especially social media.

On Sunday, I was at the annual Catholic Youth Day in Den Bosch, where my concerns found some resonance and also an indication of the road towards a resolution. First there was  short conversation with Mr. Jeroen Goosen, director of Katholiek Nieuwsblad. Of course we briefly spoke about the tv appearance of that weekly’s editor Mariska Orbán de Haas, which sparked my initial blog post. And while I think that media training is a great asset for Catholics in the media, I also think that Mr. Goosen was right when he said that some media outlets are out to place the Church in a bad light, regardless of the intentions of what the person being interviewed brings to the debate.

Father Roderick Vonhögen later reminded me that it’s not merely about what we do, but that God works with us, literally. We are the tools He uses. And if He can work with me, who can’t He work with?

Lastly, there was the workshop I attended, organised by Amsterdam-based Leidenhoven College, about Catholic Voices. This initiative in the UK has managed to train Catholics for thoughtful, intelligent and positive media interventions and involvement on behalf and for the Church. This example is already being followed in several countries, and the Netherlands may soon be one of them. I think that Catholic Voices is just what we need. As I mentioned earlier, we have the talent and enthusiasm among Catholics in regular and social media. Over the course of Sunday and yesterday I have become increasingly enthusiastic about this, and I intend to try and do my part to contribute to what Catholic Voices aims to do.

Catholic Voices operates according to ten principles, organised in three sets, which are equally applicable in media settings as in social and family circumstances:

Set 1: core argument

1: Look for positive intention behind the criticism (reframing).

– Understand the case against the Church.
– Find the positive intention in the case (the concern that a person has in making the case).
– Agree with this positive intention.
– Start your response from here.

Set 2: Further content

2: Show, don’t tell. Use examples, not platitudes or slogans.
3: Think in triangles. Decide on three core points you wish to bring across in a conversation.

Set 3: Form

4: Shed light, not heat. Keep your calm, do not allow the conversation to turn angry.
5: People won’t remember what you said as much as how you made them feel. Making good points in an arrogant way won’t win people towards your side.
6: Be positive.
7: Be compassionate.
8: Check your facts, but avoid robotics. Don’t just list facts like an automaton.
9: It’s not about you. It’s not personal, and it’s about God and His Church.
10: Witnessing, not winning. Making your points should be your focus, not winning the debate.

Beyond the initial goal of providing a positive and well-rounded Catholic contribution to media debates, Catholic Voices in the UK soon became more. From their website:

CATHOLIC VOICES began with a single aim: to ensure that Catholics and the Church were well represented in the media when Pope Benedict came to the UK in September 2010. Inspired by that visit, it has become much more: a school of a new Christian humanism; and the laboratory of a new kind of apologetics.

Photo credit: Eric Masseus

The Catholic voice

Yesterday I was thinking about how our Catholic voices appear in the media, and I can’t help but conclude that they don’t very well. After a television debate in which Katholiek Nieuwsblad editor Mariska Orbán de Haas (pictured) tried to defend the father-mother family construction, my Twitter page (and that of many others judging by her name being a trending topic for well into the net day) was inundated by, at best, critical comments about her performance and, at worst, serious personal attacks against her. And these did not only come from non-Catholic quarters. Most seriously, in my opinion, is the attack of self-styled Catholic media specialist Eric van den Berg, who was seemingly unable to present his possibly legitimate criticism without relishing in calling Mariska Orbán a “pearl-necklaced bitch” – a moniker admittedly coined by herself, but the use of which did set a certain tone.

I’m not writing this post to defend anyone. Criticism, after all, is not always bad, and can often be a helpful tool in bettering our conduct and performance. And when it comes to presenting our Catholic faith and the values we hold and consider important, we must learn from what critics level against us.

I am using “us” for a reason, because when it comes to situations like the one I outlined above, there is no visible sense of “us” among Catholics active in the media, in whatever form. Rather, we too often relish in the attack, personal or otherwise.

As Catholics we have something to say. But do we succeed in doing so? The Catholic voice in the media, social or otherwise, should be more unified and willing to offer constructive criticism. If someone fails in making the case that should be made, for whatever reason, there should be an effort in charitably correcting the mistakes, coupled with an openness in the other party to accept criticism.

When I consider the Catholics who are active in the media, on television, in newspaper, but also on the Internet, I see much potential in creativity, knowledge, bravery (which is sometimes indeed needed) and enthusiasm. But all that doesn’t always translate very well into the wider world of our secular society. Platforms like a television program which is a daily staple of many viewers, a major newspaper, but also new media that we ourselves can build, manage and develop, deserve a charitable and intelligent Catholic presence – charitable among ourselves and to others.