Married priests? What Bishop Kockerols really said

Bishop Jean Kockerols’ Synod intervention (as the four-minute speech allowed to each delegate is called), which he gave yesterday, has been making some headlines for what he says in his text’s final paragraph. Below, I share my translation of the entire text, in which Msgr. Kockerols expounds on what he calls the “one Christian vocation of baptism”, which is manifested in several different vocations.

  1. Mgr Jean Kockerols 2_0(Life choices) The fundamental vocation resounding in the consciousness of every person is the appeal to life. “Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19). This fundamental choice to renew every day of our existence, gives rise to confidence; which in turn leads to openness to other and an engagement to serve the world. The appeal to life is the way of humanisation.            You will have life “by loving the Lord, your God, obeying his voice, and holding fast to him” (Deut. 30:20). To the Christian this appeal to life is an invitation to be and become a disciple of Christ: Come and follow Me. The answer, given in full freedom, exists in conforming one’s life to that of the Christ: to develop trust in God, in prayer, love, joy, self-sacrifice… The appeal of the Lord presents a way of holiness.
  2. (Choices in life) This vocation of baptism is the source and summit of every other vocation. First the vocation of daily life, to which the answer is a preparation for the great choices at the turning points of life. Here the Church must, with a necessary measure of pedagogy, accompany the young. She must help them make the exegesis of their lives, so that they may become disciples of the Christ, each in their own rhythm. If she doesn’t make more of an effort in this field, the Church will continue losing her credibility.
  3. (The choice of a state of life) For this reason too, the Church must accompany the questions related to the state of life: Christian marriage and celibacy for the Kingdom. These two vocations deserve, in equal measure, to be appreciated by the Church.
  4. Finally, the vocation of baptism opens the hearts of some – married or unmarried – to the vocation of the Church to serve her in the name of the Lord, to be a servant of the Christian community. The first to call in this case is the Church! One recalls that, when his name is called, the ordinand steps forward and says, “Here I am.” Then the Church addresses the bishop with the words, “The Holy Church presents you N. and ask you to ordain him to the priesthood.”
  5. There is one Christian vocation, that of baptism, and there are several vocation given it shape. Allow me to conclude: I am convinced that some young people who, in their vocation of baptism, discovered the appeal to the bond of marriage, would like to answer “Here I am”, would the Church call them to office of priesthood.

Bishop Kockerols does little more than acknowledge the wish of some that married men be allowed to be ordained to the priesthood. He does not criticise the rule of celibacy for Catholic priests – in paragraph 3 he says that celibacy and marriage must be appreciated equally. But by merging the various Christian vocations into one main vocation of baptism, they, in a way, become interchangeable. After all, as long as we respond to our vocation of baptism, with the help of the Church, there can be a certain openness or flexibility in how it is applied in life.

Is Bishop Kockerols right? I won’t hazard to say. By acknowledging the desire of some married men to serve the Church as priests, he is doing more than simply stating a fact. By virtue of the place at and audience before which he said, it becomes more than that, and the suggestion was met with a “soft gasp” from some in the audience, it has been said. But, it would be an injustice to reduce Bishop Kockerols’ intervention to one line, as it contains a few important pointers to how the Church should relate to young people in discerning their vocations.

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

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

bonny, danneels, van looy

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

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

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

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

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

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

+ Luc Van Looy”