December 2019
In a blog post fiercely critical of Pope Francis, retired Dutch priest Cor Mennen lamented that "People are so used to having respect for the pope that they think things cannot be that bad: they just believe it’s fake news." A lecturer in Canon Law at the Major Seminary of the Diocese of 's-Hertogenbosch, he also quoted his response to a confused priest who was tempted not to name the pope during Mass. Stating that he considered Francis "harmful" to the Church, Mennen wrote:
"On good grounds I think he is a heretic, but at this time no one in the Church is entitled to declare this officially, thus provoking his excommunication. So for the time being we are stuck with a pope who is formally the head of the Church and at the same time harmful to the Church. We can only hope that the next conclave will make a wiser choice. In the meantime, we just name him in the canon. It is not otherwise. But it is not forbidden at that same moment mentally to say a rapid prayer for the conversion of the pope."
Although not sanctioned, he was rebuked by his bishop, Gerard de Korte, who said he was obliged to “whistle back” Fr Mennen because "Calling the pope a heretic, that really doesn’t do." However, de Korte's auxiliary, Bishop Robert Mutsaerts, supported the priest: republishing on his "episcopal" blog the following post by Fr Mennen, in which he expands on points that displeased Bishop de Korte. Our title.
Facing Down Francis
On the occasion of the Amazon Synod, Bishop de Korte told Katholiek Nieuwsblad that there are two approaches: “Within the Church there is a synthetic line and an anti-synthetic line. The synthetic line tries to integrate the truth, goodness, and beauty of the other culture into the expression of Faith. In the case of the anti-synthetic line, that is precisely what is rejected.” It is further said that de Korte himself is of the synthetic line and his auxiliary bishop of the anti-synthetic line.
This seems to me, frankly, to be real nonsense. It’s not that simple at all. The Catholic Church has always tried in its missionary work to integrate the true, the good, and the beautiful contained in a culture receiving the mission. Thus, from the beginning, Christianity was linked to Greco-Roman civilisation, and thus the Church became the bearer of the unique Christian Western culture. In doing so, the Church adopted all the beautiful things of the Greco-Roman culture: visual art, architecture, and great philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, which it Christianised, but it also radically rejected all pagan elements that do not correspond to the Christian faith, such as the subordination of women, abortion, infanticide, obscene plays, and bloody gladiatorial battles. The temples were gradually transformed into churches, but no one would have dreamed of showing any respect for the Roman idols. On the contrary, the early Christians would rather have died than do so. Throughout history, missionaries of the existing culture have incorporated what was appropriate to the gospel and rejected what was contrary to it. This is the true synthetic line that no one in the Church will object to, including Bishop Mutsaerts.
For the first time in Church history, the central authority in the Church now deviates from this synthetic approach (normal inculturation) and proclaims syncretistic (arbitrary mixing of real pagan elements with Christian) views. It is not the case that some confused bishop or some old Liberation Theologian said some strange things on the Amazon Synod; no, the pope-approved working document of the synod contains all kinds of syncretic elements: the concept of Mother Earth already appears in it; the Amazon is called a locus of theology alongside the Bible; we need to get a better understanding of the ecological importance of the Amazonian worship of the spirits. According to the synod document and many synod fathers, this should be included in the Catholic Amazonian faith. And the fact that I’m not talking nonsense is proven in the whole Pachamama thing, where under the watchful and approving eye of the pope (something unheard of in 2,000 years), pagan rituals took place in the Vatican gardens around the goddess Pachamama. This idolatrous lady was later solemnly carried in a procession with the pope into Saint Peter’s, and she was given a place in the synod aula [hall]. Is this part of Bishop de Korte’s synthetic vision? I suppose so, because it is only against this that the remarks of his auxiliary bishop, who, according to Katholiek Nieuwsblad, is anti-synthetic, are directed.
This whole issue is not about synthetic or anti-synthetic or modern or old-fashioned. We can discuss those things, but we can all live with them. This is about the Catholic faith itself. At the highest level of the Church, there is a deviation from the Catholic faith itself. In the Church we have a clear word for important deviations from Catholic doctrine: heresy. This is one of the most important sins against the Church. The authority in the Church is called to act against it, as all the popes and councils of the Church have done in the past. The present pope and “his” synods do not do this. They proclaim or at the very least promote certain heresies, also by deliberately using unclear language or by expressing opposing opinions. The Pachamama event goes beyond heresy: it is apostasy (apostasy) by agreeing to worship idols, which radically violates the First Commandment of the Decalogue.
The bishop told K.N. that he whistled me back because I called the pope a heretic. Well, as regards the whistling back, it wasn’t that bad: at a chapter meeting, he told me that such an accusation was really not possible and put an end to all dialogue. Well, I don’t know what “dialogue” one should have with heretics. Faced with the Church’s constant doctrine, they can either agree or reject it. If they agree with the doctrine, there is nothing wrong. If they don’t, they are heretics. Moreover, I have never seen the pope’s willingness to engage in dialogue during his entire pontificate. The dubia cardinals are still waiting...
It goes farther and farther, by the way. The role of the pope in the Pachamama affair could tempt me to give the pope an even more serious qualification than “heretic.” I won’t do that now, but everyone can draw his own honest conclusions.