The reality behind Fr. Massaer’s transfer – Diocese of ‘s-Hertogenbosch corrects LifeSite

A simple transfer of a priest in the Dutch Diocese of ‘s-Hertogenbosch has sparked suggestive comments from LifeSite  that it had to do with the priest, Fr. Marc Massaer, having recently delivered a homily in which he spoke about Catholic teaching on family, sexuality and especially gender ideology and homosexuality. The American news outlet, know for its highly suggestive reporting, linked to the perceived anti-Catholic attitude of ‘s-Hertogenbosch’s Bishop Gerard de Korte.

Today, the diocese published a statement in Dutch and English, outlining not only the nature of Fr Massaer’s reassignment, but also highlighting the dishonest nature of LifeSite’s reporting. Below I share the English statement. The Dutch text may be found at the link above.

Statement of the Diocese of ’s-Hertogenbosch concerning the new appointment of father Marc Massaer 

Only recently father Marc Massaer announced his departure from the parish of St. Christoffel in Dreumel. Bishop Gerard de Korte intends to give him an appointment as a pastor (parochus) in another parish. Other than the website LifeSiteNews.com suggests the replacement of father Massaer is not a reaction on the sermon he held at Christmas in the church of Wamel.

An article on this website wrongly suggests that bishop Gerard de Korte replaces the pastor because of the earlier mentioned homily in which among other things he defended Church doctrine as to gender ideology and homosexuality. Pastor Massaer’s new appointment is not related to that matter.

Vacancy
The intended new appointment of pastor Massaer is part of a small so-called carrousel: in the next months eight priests will receive a new appointment. The appointment of pastor Massaer is intended to fill in a vacancy in another parish. Massaer has been working in the parish of St. Christoffel for almost eight years.

New appointments of priests are the result of a careful consideration. Various factors are of influence, such as the duration of the current appointment, personal circumstances, the construction of pastoral teams, personal qualities and experience, the spreading of priests throughout the diocese,  the creation of vacancies etcetera.

Resentful suggestion
The diocese doesn’t normally give an explanation about new appointments. In this case an exception is being made, because the LifeSiteNews.com article makes a resentful suggestion. Moreover, the article evokes reactions in which incorrect assumptions are being elaborated. All this may lead to confusion among the faithful and doesn’t do justice to bishop De Korte.

The diocese was never asked for a reaction by LifeSiteNews prior to the aforementioned publication.

Advertisement

A priest breaks his vows – my thoughts about the case of Pierre Valkering

I didn’t want to devote many words to this, as I thought that, sordid as the affair is, it is not a reflection of the Catholic Church in the Netherlands, nor does the priest responsible deserve his story to overshadow other, more positive news. But as it has now broken internationally (in English at Crux, and in German at Katholisch.de), I think I can at least share my thoughts. I published those thoughts in Dutch on Tuesday, and, as said, I wanted to leave it at that. But perhaps it is good to also share them in English.

First, the context:

On 1 April, Father Pierre Valkering celebrated the 25th anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood. After the festive Mass he presented his autobiography, which he had been working on in secret over the past couple of years. In it, he describes not only his homosexuality, but also his addiction to pornography (going so far as to say that something of the Gospel may be found in pornography) and his past visits to dark rooms and other homosexual meeting areas. These revelations came as a shocking surprise to the diocese. In the past, Bishop Jos Punt had spoken at several occasions with Fr. Valkering about his celibacy, receiving the assurance that the latter was dealing with it “responsibly”. That was obviously a lie.

As a response, the bishop requested that Fr. Valkering cease his priestly duties for the time being and enter into a period of reflection. In a statement issued on 2 April, the diocese states:

“Father could also have chosen to discuss his struggle with his sexuality and celibacy openly and honestly with his bishop. That honesty would certainly not have been punished. On the contrary, together with Fr. Valkering ways could have been found to reflect upon it and receive help. That has in the past also been done for several other priests.

But Fr. Valkering has chosen for a sudden and public act, in which the bishop has not been known in any way. He has also not given any indication about whether he is willing or able to maintain his celibacy in the future.”

Below follows the opinion piece I shared in Dutch via Twitter and Facebook.

The piece below is not a discussion about the doctrine of the Church, homosexuality, sexual abuse in the Church or the mandatory celibacy for priests in the Catholic Church. This is my response to articles about the Amtserdam priest Fr. Pierre Valkering who was placed on leave by Bishop Jos Punt of Haarlem-Amsterdam following the publication of his autobiography. In that autobiography Valkering describes his homosexuality, his ignoring his oath to remain celibate by actively having sexual contacts and his appreciation for pornography. Separate from a discussion about these topics, the indignation about such behaviour by a Catholic priest is justified. Had Valkering written about heterosexual contacts, that indignation and the consequences for him would have been no different.

At first I thought it was an April Fool’s joke. A sensible conclusion to draw when someone publishes a book by his hand on that date, in which he prides himself in his sexual excesses, appreciation for pornography and regular visits to dark rooms and other gay meeting places. And this person is a priest of the Roman Catholic Church. No priest, who should have a more than superficial knowledge of what the Church teaches about sexuality and priesthood, would say something like that in all seriousness, right? It would have been a fine April’s Fools joke.

But nothing of the sort. Father Pierre Valkering apparently does not value the oaths he made at his ordination. Celibacy for priests is not a new thing. It existed long before there was a Pierre Valkering. But this priest seemingly considered it possible that an active sexual life was compatible with the priesthood, and thought he should speak about it proudly as well.

Valkering indicates that he has long struggled with his homosexuality and that his priesthood was essentialy a form of fleeing. That is something that must be taken seriously. That struggle and flight should have been prevented, and Valkering should have received the help he needed. His surroundings, including the Church, have failed him in that respect. It is to be hoped, therefore, that the period of reflection imposed upon him by Bishop Punt, can help him, and that he will not have to go through it alone.

I obviously do not know the exact cirucmstances which led Valkering to a crooked combination of priesthood and a seriously harmful form of sexuality. Bishop Punt probably also does not know, even though there have been meetings between priest and bishop in the past regarding previous publications and statements and the priest’s view on celibacy and his experience of it (he handled it responsibly, according the the diocese’s statment, but that apparently has a different meaning for Valkering than it did for the bishop). But with the bishop’s responsibility for assuring the correct communicatuon of the faith and the doctrine of the Church by his priests, Msgr. Punt could do little else than asking Fr. Valkering to lay down his duties, at least for now, and reflect on his actions.

The bishop shares the responsibility mentioned above with his priests. From his ordination and mission a priest has the duty of communicating the faith, by celebrating and teaching it, but also by being an example. The sexual excesses of Pierre Valkering, and the way in which he made them public, are an example which is contrary to the faith in all respects: he not only repeatedly broke his oath, but he also ignores his priestly mission and so leads others away from the faith. The way in which he thinks to express his sexuality are at odds with a healthy sexuality as the Church understands it. This is something one can disagree with, obviously. Discussion is always possible, but Valkering did not choose that option. Instead, he chooses a prideful form of deceit. He is a Catholic priest, but does not feel bound to the tasks and responsibilities of a priest. Instead of living for God, he chooses living for himself. He choose to lie to his bishop, to all the faithful for whom he was responsible as parish priest, and ultimately also to God.

With his autbiography, Valkering inflicts damage to the Church, to the people around him, and most of all to himself. Let us hope and pray that he may learn to see that and is offered and can accept the help he needs. The damage done in the past can’t be taken away, but perhaps its impact can be softened.”

German bishops speak out in favour of celibacy

Despite assurances to the contrary, the German episcopate as a body continues to be seen by many as plotting a course independent of Rome when it comes to questions about the sacraments, the priesthood and synodality. That said, several bishops have recently spoken out in defence of one topic which, certain circles claim, should be abolished if the Church is to change for the better: mandatory celibacy for priests.

The main contribution, certainly in word count, comes from Bishop Dominikus Schwaderlapp, auxiliary bishop of Cologne, who wrote an article about the topic for the Tagespost (subsequently also published on Domradio), with a focus on the issue in the context of the abuse crisis. Identifying the call to abolish celibacy as conservative because it is, by now, a somewhat old-fashioned position, the bishop asks, “Why is my celibate way of life always criticised so strongly by people who don’t have to live it at all? Didnt I make that choice, not you?” He adds that no one forced him to choose to live celibate. Bishop Schwaderlapp explains the value of celibacy for a priest:

“It is not just a fitting oneself into the order of the Church. Celibacy is not limited to a – sometimes painful – denunciation of an exclusive two-way relationship of one’s own in order to have time and space for the many. And as such it is more than “just” the adoption of Jesus’ lifestyle – it is after all Him whom the priest is to make tangible in his life. Celibacy means a self-giving to Christ. with body and soul. And with and through Christ it means a self-giving to the people. It is about making the open heart of Jesus tangible through the celibate way of living. Being a priest is a matter of the heart, otherwise it becomes a caricature.”

The bishop likens this act of self-giving, which includes the priest sexuality, to what a husband and wife do in marriage. Rather than giving themselves to each other, with body, soul and sexuality, a priest gives himself to God.

Not blind to the challenges facing the Church and society, Bishop Schwarderlapp nonetheless concludes that allowing priests to marry is not an answer.

“This charism makes the purpose and mission of the priest “physical”: to make Jesus Christ visible, audible and tangible in this world. Incidentally, celibacy is always outdated because it refers, across time, to the one who was, who is and who will come. It is fatal if this charism is put up for discussion, and when we bishops take part in it. There are no new factual arguments against celibacy. [Abolition]  would not serve as a remedy to abuse, nor as an impetus to the – much needed – inner renewal of the Church. There has never been renewal by less, but always only through more devotion.”

Bishop Helmut Dieser of Aachen expresses himself in similar words. He too emphasises that celibacy is not something negative, nor something that is forced upon a priest. It is, he states, “a Biblical way of life in imitation of Jesus, a charism”. However, he also says, should a situation exist when there are no men choosing celibacy, the Church should keep “suitable married men” in mind. This openness to the practical situation, which at this time does not exist in Germany, is echoed by Bishop Stefan Oster of Passau. His position in an interview, which he shared on his website, caused some confusion as it appeared as if he was in favour of loosening the celibacy rules. “I am not, even when I consider it possible,” he tersely explains. Bishop Oster also explains that there is room to discuss the question of celibacy: “The question is not dogmatic. Unlike with sexual morality there is more leeway, and the pope has already encouraged the search for new ways in this regard.”

About celibacy itself, the bishop says:

“Celibacy is the way of life of Jesus and as such a great spiritual treasure, which is worth fighting for. But I do not rule out the possibility (of a loosening of the celibacy rules). When the majority of priests say that it is no longer possible to live celibately in this time and society, then it becomes difficult. On the other hand I do not want the priest who is already struggling with his way of life, but who has made an oath, now reading, “the bishop also says that it is difficult, so I’ll also give it up.” I do not want to demotivate, I want to say: the struggle is worth it.”

The new bishop of Fulda, Michael Gerber, who will be installed today, has also said that he is opposed to abolishing mandatory celibacy, and prefers to focus instead of assuring that priests remain part of a ‘network’, thus preventing any of them from falling prey to loneliness.

Other bishops, such as Peter Kolhgraf of Mainz and Georg Bätzing of Limburg, have expressed their support for voluntary celibacy, showing that, if anything, the German episcopate is no monolith.

Photo credits: [1] Erzbistum Köln, [2] Elisabeth Schomaker/KNA, [3] Bischöfliche Pressestelle Passau

The synodal path – German bishops to put global truth to popular vote?

In their spring assembly, which this year took place in the Emsland town of Lingen, in the Diocese of Osnabrück, the German bishops discussed, among other things, several hot topics. First and foremost the abuse crisis, of course, on which they heard from various experts and were told that the Church is losing (or even already has lost) all her credibility as a result of the sexual abuse committed by clergy and the subsequent coverup by bishops and superiors.

In order to perhaps recover some of the credibility, and find a permanent solution to the scourge of abuse, which the bishops see as an expression of abuse of power, they opt to go the synodal path. The buzzword which has been the go-to solution for a lot of things in recent years is perhaps hard to define, but if anything, it amounts to less power for bishops and more listening and taking advise from lay faithful and experts outside the Church. There is of course a risk that any expression of episcopal authority comes to be seen as undesirable, thus pretty much negating the power and fucntion of bishops, but this is another story.

In the post-meeting press conference (text here), Cardinal Reihard Marx (at right) discusses this synodal path and explains that the bishops have decided to employ it also on the topics of power abuse, priestly celibacy and the Church’s sexual morality. Does this mean, as some have commented, that the German bishops will put these topics to a popular vote? For the first, the abuse of power by clergy, this may be a good path, but I have my doubts if a singular bishops’ conference can and should take the teachings of the Church, which is not limited to Germany, and single-handedly change them if the people demand it.

Below is my translation of the relevant passage from the press conference:

—|||—

“The Church needs a synodal development. Pope Francis encourages us to do so. And we do not begin from zero. The Würzburg Synod (1972-1975)  and also the processes of recent years have prepared the ground, also for the many challenges of today. We have decided in unison to go a synodal path as Church in Germany, which enables a structural debate and takes place in a scheduled timeframe, and in fact together with the Central Committee of German Catholics. We will create formats for open debate and committ ourselves to processes which allow for a responsible participation of women and men from our dioceses. We want to be a listening Church. We need the advise from people outside the Church.

I will therefore list three points which played a part in the study day and upon which we will focus:

• We are aware of the cases of clerical abuse of power. It is a betrayal of the trust of people seeking for support and religious orientation. What has to be done to achieve the required development of power and create a fairer and legally binding order, will become clear on the synodal path. The development of administrative tribunals is a part of this.
• We are aware that the way of life of bishops and priests requires change to show the inner freedom of of the faith and the orientation on the example of Jesus Christ. We consider celibacy to be an expression of religious unity with God. We wish to work out the extent to which it should be a part of the witness of priests in our Church.
• The Church’s sexual morality has not yet accepted several findings from theology and humanities. The personal meaning of sexuality has not been given sufficient attention. The result: the proclamation of morality offers no direction to the majority of the baptised. We see how often we are unable to respond to questions about modern sexual behaviour.”

—|||—

The bishops plan to have a plan for this synodal path ready by September, when it will be discussed in a meeting of bishops, members of the Central Committee of German Catholics and others.

In the mean time, I wonder if this is not taking the same course as the Communion for remarried Catholics debate? That was also taken to Rome by some bishops who understood that a single group of bishops can not pretend to speak for the entire world Church. The question of priestly celibacy and sexual morality can certainly be discussed, even by a single bishops’ conference, but they can not take unilateral action contrary to what the Church as a whole teaches. These changes, if they must be made, must be made at the top.

I am leaving the bishops’ first point, about combating abuse of power, out of this, as that is something they can act on by themselves.

The fate of McCarrick – a new impulse in the fight against abuse?

“On 11 January 2019, the Congresso of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, at the conclusion of a penal process, issued a decree finding Theodore Edgar McCarrick, archbishop emeritus of Washington, D.C., guilty of the following delicts while a cleric: solicitation in the Sacrament of Confession, and sins against the Sixth Commandment with minors and with adults, with the aggravating factor of the abuse of power. The Congresso imposed on him the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state. On 13 February 2019, the Ordinary Session (Feria IV) of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith considered the recourse he presented against this decision. Having examined the arguments in the recourse, the Ordinary Session confirmed the decree of the Congresso. This decision was notified to Theodore McCarrick on 15 February 2019. The Holy Father has recognized the definitive nature of this decision made in accord with law, rendering it a res iudicata (i.e., admitting of no further recourse).”

A fairly brief note, the first from the Holy See press office today, but one with serious ramifications. The Church’s progress in the fight against sexual abuse, especially in the last few weeks leading up to the bishops’ meeting about that topic in Rome, has been heavily criticised. While progress definitely exists, many say it’s not going fast  enough or isn’t being done thoroughly enough, and that past mistakes and ill judgements continue being made today. This decision from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, however, should serve as a reminder and an impulse that no abuser can hide behind the comforts of his or her office.

Mr. McCarrick has been what is usually called ‘laicised’, which is not really the right term, as many have pointed out that it seems to mean that being a lay person is somehow a step below being a cleric. As the above publication states, McCarrick has been ‘dismissed from the clerical state’. He remains a priest, as all sacraments are eternal and cannot be revoked, but he no longer has any rights or duties associated with that state. He can not present himself as a priest or bishop, which includes dressing like one, can’t celebrate any sacraments (apart from Baptism, which anyone can confer in an emergency) and can exercise no rights regarding support from any parish, diocese or religious movement, beyond those extended to any random passer-by.

The statement also indicates exactly what McCarrick has been found guilty of: solicitation in the Sacrament of Confession, ie. improper advances or conduct during a person’s confession; sins against the Sixth Commandment, “You shall not commit adultery”, which relates to proper sexuality regarding one’s own body and the relationships with others; all this made worse by the power McCarrick held as priest, bishop, archbishop and cardinal. In the vast majority of cases, situations of sexual abuse are in the basis abuses of power.

For decades, McCarrick was one of the most powerful men in the Catholic Church in the United States and, once he had been made a cardinal 2001, in the world church. This long protected him from accusations and investigations. Now that a verdict has been reached after a due process, the question remains: who knew about the misdeeds of McCarrick, and who kept quiet when he should have spoken up? The list of those rumoured to have known at least something includes some high-level names, including that of McCarrick’s successor in Washington, Cardinal Wuerl, and that of the new Chamberlain of the Church, Cardinal Farrell…

Cardinal Müller’s Manifesto of Faith – refutation of its critics

I really shouldn’t be surprised anymore, but I was nonetheless yesterday.

On Friday, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and now a sort of free-roaming cardinal with no specific mission, issued a “Manifesto of Faith“. As he explains in the opening paragraphs he did so on the request of various people, both clergy and laity, in order to provide some measure of clarity to the confusion that exists about Catholic doctrine. Without doubt, we must understand this to be based in the different interpretations of recent papal teachings regarding such varied topics like marriage, sexuality and ecumenism. The teachings themselves may not be confusing, but their communication and interpretation most definitely are. But Cardinal Müller’s reasons go beyond this, and back over past decades and the formation, or lack thereof, of the faithful on matters of conscience, the nature of Christ, the Church, the sacraments, morality and eternal life.

The manifesto is in the first place a summary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, at least regarding the topics discussed. It is stuffed with references to paragraphs from the document, which aims to summarise the faith, and as such can serve as a helpful reminder of what it is that we confess as Catholics and how that affects our spiritual and daily life. Cardinal Müller also offers a few interpretations and explanations, which are all the interpretations of Tradition, communicated over the years and centuries by popes and theologians alike. Until those interpretations, for example that divorced and civilly remarried faithful can not receive Communion, are changed, they stand. They are what we are beholden to as Catholics. And, despite footnotes and desires expressed in interviews, under Pope Francis no steps have yet been taken to change this.

On to my surprise.

The reception of Cardinal Müller’s manifesto, especially in social media, has been as expected. Some quietly welcomed it, presenting it as a text worth reading, without, I must say, a lot of further comment. Others, however, including a significant number of Vatican commentators and reporters, have taken the text to frame the cardinal and his supporters:

Cardinal Müller, they say, is opposed to Pope Francis, and with this manifesto he presents an alternative Magisterium. Some have gone so far as calling him an anti-pope. How on earth, I wonder, can a text so rooted in the Catechism, in the faith that we all claim to confess as Catholics, be an alternative Magisterium? It is as if the critics claim that this is not the faith they confess, and, worse, not the faith that the pope confesses. If that were true, we would indeed have an anti-pope, but it would not be Cardinal Müller.

The criticism they level at Cardinal Müller is also marked not by theological refutations, but limit themselves to superficialities. The cardinal is angry at the pope for being dismissed as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, they say. We know this because of the way he signed his manifesto. He must be opposed to Pope Francis, because the Holy Father chooses not to discuss doctrine that much, instead focusing on social and charitable issues. Thus, they insist, the manifesto should not be taken seriously, even mocked (and not just the text, but in the first place its author).

Worst of all, those critics continue to insist that there is no confusion. There is therefore no other reason for Cardinal Müller to publish his manifesto than to position himself as an alternative authority to the pope. In reality, though, the different interpretations of various recent papal communications, and the spiritual and formative developments of the faithful over the past decades, are clear as day.

In the minds of Cardinal Müller’s attackers, a cardinal’s duty is to quietly fall in line with what the pope says and does. Their mission is not that of a shepherd, but of a sheep. Any hint at them overstepping that role is seen as an attack against them and what they consider the “fluffiest pope ever”, to borrow a phrase. This is an unhealthy attitude that changes the nature of the Magisterium and the hierarchy of the Church into a dictatorship. Some say that’s due to Pope Francis, but it’s his supposed self-appointed supporters who do the most damage.

The manifesto is text worth reading. As I’ve said above, it offers a reminder of what our faith actually entails in various matters. It says little about practical applications, but theologically it is a reminder of the rich foundation and intricate beauty of our faith. The manifesto is also a call to action, to rediscover that foundation and beauty, and grow beyond the earthly superficialities, which have their place and value, but which do not define our faith and unity with Jesus Christ.

The English text of Cardinal Müller’s manifesto is available in several places, such as here, while my Dutch translation can be found via this link.

 

Paderborn seminary opens doors for homosexual candidates, but maintains celibacy rule for all

The German Archdiocese of Paderborn will soon allow homosexual men to enter their priestly formation program. Seminary head Msgr. Michael Menke-Peitzmeyer said so before national broadcaster WDR. Like heterosexual seminarians, they will be bound to celibacy. “A person being clearly homosexually active,” the theologian, who has led the seminary since 2013, explained, “I think, would be a criterium to exclude him from priestly ministry.” Msgr. Menke-Peitzmeyer further stated that the difference between orientation and practice must be discerned.

In other words, homosexual men must be treated no different than heterosexual men when coming to knock on the door of the seminary, Both are bound to live celibate lives, and both will receive psychological support during their formation regarding their personal attitudes and sexual orientation, as already happens now.

The Paderborn decision seems to be a departure from a 2005 Instruction from the Congregation for Catholic Education, which was cited in the new Ratio Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis, issued in 2016. The 2005 document states:

[T]his Dicastery […] believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”.

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.” [N. 2]

Homosexual practice and support for the so-called “gay culture”, which is at odds with the Catholic teachings regarding sexuality, marriage and family, continue to be reasons for the Paderborn seminary to deny candidates, but “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” are another matter. And these, I imagine, are also the most difficult to identify or even define. What are they? Can they be limited to the mere fact of same-sex attraction, or should we understand them as urges which can’t be contained by the celibacy rule? If the latter, the Instruction is understandable.

The question is further muddled by the fact that the Church already has openly homosexual priests. The best-known example in the Netherlands is Fr. Antoine Bodar (at right), who has been highly critical of the trend that makes homosexual actions the worst sin imaginable, but equally critical of the secular tendency of making every gesture of kindness and affection homosexual. By the 2005 Instruction, Fr. Bodar should never have been allowed to become a priest. And it’s not as if he kept his orientation a secret.

The decision of the Paderborn seminary is, in my opinion, a good one, IF (and I capitalise that with reason) it maintains the clear Catholic teachings regarding sexuality, celibacy and priesthood, coupled with a thorough examination of prospective candidates. If it does, there is no reason for the bishop to refuse a seminarian only because he is homosexual.

Source

 

Tiptoeing towards understanding – Bishop co-hosts meeting between Church and LGBT community

Almost one year ago, an ecumenical prayer service in a Catholic cathedral to open a gay pride festival, and including a blessing by the bishop, was a bridge too far. This year, more exactly last night, the Diocese of ‘s-Hertogenbosch co-hosted the first of three dialogue meetings about faith and sexual diversity. Participating in the private meeting, characterised by an atmosphere of “security, openness and honesty”, were Bishop Gerard de Korte, cathedral administrator Fr. Geertjan van Rossem as well as representatives from the churches in the city of ‘s-Hertogenbosch and from the political world.

The meeting was promised by the bishop as he announced last year’s plan to host the ecumenical prayer service on Pink Saturday at the cathedral of St. John. Those plans were later cancelled after significant protests, and the service was relocated to the Protestant Grote Kerk. Fr. Van Rossem did participate in it, but Bishop de Korte did not.

The focus of the meeting was to foster understanding. The participants spoke in groups of ten, and the bishops joined several of these groups. “What struck me in the conversations was the willingness to really listen respectfully to each other’s experiences. The participants were courteous, did not look for discussion, but spoke about what they had experienced themselves.”

Mr. Ivo van Harmelen, former Pink Saturday program manager and co-organiser of the dialogue meeting, said: “From the conversation the wish to remain in contact manifested itself especially. First show love, begin a dialogue and try to find each other in that way.” As such, the meeting had no ideological character. It was intended to listen, to create some form of connection and understanding, which can be the basis for further developments.

The interests of Christians and people who identify themselves in sexually different ways are often strained and usually diametrically opposed. The contacts between, if any, are often hostile and judgmental. But both also want to convince the other of their beliefs. Fighting and condemnation will not do that. If there is any hope of dialogue and understanding, there must be a foundation first. These meetings are an attempt to achieve that.

Two more meetings are planned for tonight and tomorrow evening, between faithful, pastors and representatives of various sexual diversity communities.

Photo credit: Ramon Mangold

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Via their spokesperson, the Dutch bishops responded as follows:

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

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

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

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

---

Like this post? Think of making a donation! 

 

Permission withdrawn – Bishop de Korte says no to gay pride prayer service at his cathedral

Last week, Bishop Gerard de Korte wrote a letter to explain his decision to allow an ecumenical prayer service to open the gay pride Pink Saturday event at ‘s-Hertogenbosch’s cathedral. I shared that letter in an English translation in the post linked above. Sadly, that letter did not have the effect hoped for the by the bishop, and today he announces that he withdraws his permission for the prayer service in his cathedral.

In his second letter, the bishop states that he failed to remove the tensions that arose in his diocese following the announcement of the prayer event. “My nuanced doctrinal and pastoral letter was not accepted by many,” he writes, and adds, “Homosexuality remains a sensitive issue in our Church.”

Bishop de Korte then explains his decision to withdraw permissions:

“Until today, priests and other faithful have protested the prayer service at St. John’s. Although I personally completely trust the prayer leaders, I must conclude that, even before the service has begun, the religious feelings of many Catholics have been deeply affected. To the, the cathedral is the symbol of our diocese and they cannot believe that the service’s serenity is guaranteed. This is a serious state of affairs. I cannot hurt the conscience of faithful and must not cause scandal to my brothers and sisters.

The commotion surrounding the intended prayer service is such that the good relationships within the faith community are at stake. In that context I feel, after careful deliberation, forced to withdraw my permission for the ecumenical prayer service in our cathedral. I really that this new decision is a disappointment to more than a few. But because of the unity in our diocese I believe I can do no other.”

This decision, the bishop explains, does in no way mean that there should be no outreach from the Church to the gay community. I think that was at the core of the intended prayer service, hence the title of my previous post on the issue beginning with that word ‘outreach’.

Bishop de Korte writes:

“Dominant secular culture is directly contrary to Catholicism on the correct experience of sexuality in general and homosexuality especially. Catholic faithful live in modern culture and are deeply influenced by it.

As I concluded in my Pentecost letter, this often leads to misunderstanding, anger and sadness. As a bishop, I will keep looking for a proper form of dialogue, both internally and externally, no matter how difficult and thankless that may often be. People, of any orientation, should find, in our Catholic community at least, kindness, security and friendship. Every person is welcome in our faith community.”

The sense of disappointment is tangible in the bishop’s words, and that is shared by many who have commented on social media tonight. What we should watch out for is fingerpointing, however. Bishop de Korte felt forced to make this decision, but he did so out his sense of duty to all the faithful entrusted to his pastoral care, not just those who may happen to agree with him on this issue. Personally, I initially had some trepidations about the wisdom of the prayer service, but on the other hand, as the bishop says, we can’t ignore the society we live in. It is in that society that we must reach people: it is impossible to remain outside it and expect to be a Church with any kind of influence or voice. The Church will simply be ignored, even more than it is already, by faithful and non-faithful alike.

Bishop de Korte concludes his letter with a sense of hope.

“When I was installed as bishop in the cathedral, on Saturday 14 May 2016, I spoke about the importance of mutual trust and unity. I strife for an clear but also hospitable and friendly Church. I hope and pray that every faithful in our diocese wants to contribute to that, especially at this moment. Especially now, we are called to hold on to each other as a community around the living Lord.”

The ecumenical prayer service is not cancelled, but will relocate to a nearby Protestant church. Cathedral administrator Father Geertjan van Rossem will be one of the celebrants of the serive, but Bishop de Korte won’t attend.

Photo credit: Marc Bolsius