Hold ud, hold ud, hold ud!! (18)

 –  fortsat

15. Kontakt til Rom

I sit brev til mig af 07. august 2012 nævner biskoppen, at jeg er velkommen til at klage over hans ‘administrative pastorale disposition’ ang. mig i Rom. Og gentager det i efterfølgende skrivelser.  Han gentager ligeledes, at hans dispositioner ‘ikke behøver at være permanente’, men gi’r ingen formodet tidsramme.

Efter forgæves gennem to år at have ventet på biskoppens ophævelse af min ikke nødvendigvis permanente (?) ‘forbandelse’ og efter flere forgæves forsøg på at komme på samtalefod med ham omkring dette, føler jeg, at nu er nok nok, hvorfor jeg i marts 2014, – bestemt ikke med begejstring, – beslutter mig for at følge biskoppens opfordring. Biskoppen vil sikkert benægte, at han ikke har villet tale med mig, men han og jeg ser forskelligt på begrebet samtale. Hvis man, i min verden, mødes til samtale, er udgangen af samtalen åben. Man véd ikke forud, hvilket resultat der vil blive dens udfald. Men når biskoppen indbyder til eller ta’r imod anmodning om samtale, er han helt på det rene med, hvad udfaldet af samtalen bli’r, for det har han forud urokkeligt bestemt. Og han har magten. Samtalen har blot det ene formål: At bringe samtalepartneren (i mit tilfælde: mig) til at forstå og acceptere dét, han allerede har bestemt. At det hænger sådan sammen, har Kozon indrømmet overfor mig.

I en ordveksling med ham ved Åsebakkevalfarten 2013, hvor jeg havde betonet, at jeg ikke længere hverken kunne eller ville leve under de aktuelle betingelser, sagde biskoppen til mig, at der ér en løsning, og at han gerne ville tale med mig. Jeg sagde til ham: “Du véd, hvor jeg bor. Du er velkommen!” Med vilje tilbød jeg ikke at komme til København. Siden mine problemer begyndte i april 2010 har han ikke besøgt mig bare én eneste gang, – altså gennem hele tre år. Nu skulle han have chancen. Men om han forstod at udnytte den? Nej. I stedet inviterede han mig til frokost på Ehlersvej.  Jeg lod ham vide, at jeg i min momentane sindstilstand ikke så mig i stand til at spise sammen med ham i hans palæ eller møde op i hans koncernbygning på Gl. Kongevej. En mailudveksling juni/juli måned igennem blev ét langt tovtrækkeri. Til sidst foreslog jeg ham at mødes i menighedshuset i Køge,  – efter tilladelse fra min derværende sognepræst, som absolut ingen problemer havde med, véd den lejlighed ikke at være hjemme. Det skete så den 07. august (2013).  ‘Samtalen’ førte (selvfølgelig) ikke til noget. Og biskoppen skulle videre. Han fortalte ikke hvorhen, men jeg vidste godt, hvad der var på programmet. Han havde en aftale med menighedsrådet i Fredericia, hvor medlemmerne havde meddelt ham, at de i samlet trop var trådt tilbage p. g. a. den ny sognepræsts opførsel, – efterfølgeren til vores p. Thomas. Rådet holdt, – trods biskoppens bøn til dem om det modsatte, –  fast ved deres beslutning. Noget, vi aldrig læste om på kirkens hjemmeside. Ligesom vi dér heller aldrig læste om, at menighedsrådet i Kalundborg, – ligeledes i protest, – året tidligere havde gjort det samme, – ikke på grund af den ny sognepræst, men på grund af biskoppens behandling af den gamle.

Resultatet af ‘samtalen’ i Køge blev af biskoppen kundgjort ved en skriftlig tilkendegivelse til mig af 09. august, hvori det bl. a. hedder:

Kære Stephen
Vor samtale i Køge i onsdags bar præg af, hvor forskelligt vi bedømmer situationen. Jeg gav udtryk for, at jeg ikke for nærværende anser det for pastoralt betimeligt at tilbagekalde de pålæg der fremgår af mit brev til dig af 20. juni 2012. Jeg kan fortsat henholde mig til, at de givne pålæg indtil videre har uændret gyldighed. Du har tidligere tilkendegivet, at du er indstillet på at klage til Kleruskongregationen og til kongregationen for biskopper, hvis de omtalte pålæg ikke tilbagekaldes. Det må jeg tage til efterretning, idet jeg blot henstiller, at du sender mig en kopi af din klage, hvis du skulle vælge at tage et sådant skridt.

I en opfølgning af 11. august hedder det:

Meningen med samtalen var at få dig til at forstå, at en ændret holdning fra din side, den lave profil, ville kunne bane vej for en ændring

– sagt på dansk: hvis du holder kæft og nærmest bliver usynlig, – sagt på klarere dansk: hvis du lader dig kastrere og om muligt får foretaget ‘det hvide snit’, – så måske . . .  Dén pris er jeg ikke villig til at betale!

Efter at have klarlagt min situation overfor en ret kendt tysk kirkeretsekspert, som jeg er blevet sat i forbindelse med, professor Thomas Schüller i Münster, opmuntrer professoren mig til at indlægge såkaldt hierarkisk rekurs i Rom. Men der skulle alligevel gå over et halvt år, hvor vi prøvede tiltag overfor biskoppen, før jeg endelig den 02. april 2014 afsender en 4-siders klage til Kleruskongregationen, – i håb om at blive taget alvorligt, men ikke med større forventninger, for hvordan går det, når en institution skal undersøge sig sig selv??, – oversat til hjemlige forhold, – hvis en klage over politiet behandles af politiet!? Politiet har erkendt dette dilemma, hvorfor der er oprettet en instans:  ‘Den uvildige politiklagemyndighed’, som ‘uvildigt’ behandler klager om politiet. En sådan instans mangler i kirken.

Taget alvorligt blev jeg så sandelig ikke. Jeg havde beskrevet Kozons bevægen-sig-på-kanten af kirkelig og civil uanstændighed, havde fortalt, at jeg ingen vegne kommer med dén mand og derfor vover dette skridt for at bede om hjælp. Og hvad får jeg som svar, – i øvrigt dateret den 05. maj, – på min præstevielsesdag??. Seks linjer som svar på en seriøs, udførlig skrivelse, der fortæller mig, at mit problem sorterer under ordinarius = Czeslaw Kozon, og at man anbefaler, at jeg taler med ham, så vi “kan nå frem til en løsning, som både han og De kan leve med.” Goddag mand, økseskaft! En uforskammethed uden lige. Men netop sådan går det, når en organisation skal undersøge sig selv. Næsten som i folk og røvere i Kardemomme by, hvor politimester Bastian bli’r bestjålet og foreslår at anmelde tyveriet til, – politiet!

Efterfølgende taler jeg med min herværende advokat om at skrive tilbage og udbede os et anstændigt svar. Han er enig i, at vi naturligvis skal reagere, men, siger han, “gå et trin højere” – altså klage til ‘chefen’ for Kleruskongregationen. ‘Chefen’ er imidlertid paven selv, repræsenteret af hans højre hånd, statssekretæren, aktuelt kardinal Pietro Parolin, som pave Frans iøvrigt netop havde udnævnt.  Altså tilskriver min advokat den 23. maj 2014 statssekretæren og gør ham opmærksom på, at det ikke er for sjov, at Rom var blevet tilskrevet af hans klient. Mit klage-brev til Kleruskongregationen vedlægges advokatens skrivelse.

Der skulle gå næsten et år, før vi, – efter to ‘rykkere’ fra advokaten, – hører noget. Men i slutningen af april 2015 modtager jeg overraskende et anbefalet brev fra “Supremo tribunale della Segnatura apostolica”.  Aner på det tidspunkt ikke, at det er et brev fra kirkens højeste domstol (at sammenligne med vor hjemlige Højesteret), men statssekretæren, . og dermed på en måde pave Frans,  har åbenbart udvirket det.  Det anbefalede brev er ganske kort, på latin, underskrevet af, ser jeg på underskriftens O. Præm., en præmonstratenser, som iøvrigt viser sig at være fra Averbode (Belgien), men som nu i Rom er titulær ærkebiskop og sekretær for Signaturaen. Han udbeder sig, – får vi at vide, da vi i anledning af Skt. Montforts fest i slutningen af april tilbringer en lille uge i vores generalat i Rom og i dén forbindelse opsøger ham personligt, – naturligt nok aktindsigt i nogle af de punkter, jeg anfører i min klage. Jeg lover ham hurtig tilsendelse, hvilket sker medio maj, – med ledsageskrivelse på nederlandsk. Hvorpå jeg midt i juni modtager brev fra Signaturaen, dateret 02. juni, – nu på engelsk. – at man har accepteret at tage min sag og, – såfremt jeg fortsat ønsker den behandlet, – pålægger mig vælge en af Signaturaen anerkendt advokat, udfra en vedlagt liste med femten navne. Naturligvis føler jeg mig som fortabt. Ikke over, at sagen er blevet antaget, – tværtimod, – men: Jeg kender ingen af de femten personer og aner ikke, hvilke sprog de taler og ikke taler. Jeg tyer til  min kirkeretsprofessor i Tyskland, – som næsten falder i svime, da jeg fortæller ham om udviklingen: “Du har opnået det uopnåelige”, siger han til mig. Jeg læser de femten navne op, hvorpå han peger på ét af navnene:  Martha Wegan, som er østriger. – helst vil jeg jo have en advokat, der taler tysk. Professor Schüller sender hende omgående en mail, hvor han i ret stærke vendinger opfordrer hende til at tage min sag, og med denne anbefaling accepterer hun at blive min advokat.

Sehr geehrte Frau Wegan, liebe Kollegin,

Ich möchte Ihnen den Priester Stephen Holm, Priester der Diözese Kopenhangen avisieren, der Sie bitten wird, ihn als Anwältin an der Signatur in einem Verwaltungsgerichtsverfahren gegen die Kleruskongregation zu vertreten
Ich kenne Herrn Holm aus vielen Telefonaten und Mails, da ein ehemaliger Student von mir ihn an mich verwiesen hat. Sein Anliegen ist ernst und er verdient alle Unterstützung, weil sein Bischof ihn gegen alle nur denkbaren klerikerrechtlichen Normen verstossend grob widerrechtlich behandelt hat und die Kleruskongregation die Sache nicht wirklich sachgerecht bearbeitet hat.
Für eine kurze Rückmeldung wäre ich dankbar, ob Sie bereit wären, dieses Mandat zu übernehmen. Stephen Holm würde sich darüber sehr freuen.

Mit herzlichen Grüßen
Thomas Schüller

I september 2015 erfarer jeg, at biskop Kozon nu er blevet klar over, at jeg er gået til Rom med sagen. Og for, ansigt til ansigt med ham at ‘stå véd’, at jeg har taget dette skridt, udbeder jeg mig i oktober en ‘samtale’ med ham. Hér nævner jeg indledningsvis, at jeg egentlig blot har fulgt dén opfordring, han flere gange har givet mig: At jeg, hvis jeg føler mig forkert behandlet, kan indklage hans dispositioner højere oppe ad ranglisten. Men det har helt tydeligt forbavset ham, at jeg de-facto har gjort alvor af det, og endnu mere forbavset er han over, at klagen er nået til tops, altså i Signaturaen. Det er jeg naturligvis osse selv: Hvordan kan en lille sag ang. en lille, ligegyldig pensioneret præst i et for Rom sikkert ganske ligegyldigt diaspora-bispedømme med en ligegyldig biskop blive ‘behandlingsværdig’ i Signaturaen?? Og kan ikke lade være med at finde et svar deri, at der må være flere klager over samme biskop. Det gi’r et lille hip i Kozon, da jeg fortæller ham, at sagen havde været forbi Parolin. Jeg fremfører overfor ham min mening: At han jo ikke, på grund af videresendelsen til Rom, behøver at føle sig handlingslammet, som et rådyr om natten på landevejen, der står stille, når en bils lygter rammer det. “Jaaa.. men det vil jo se mærkeligt ud i Rom, hvis jeg bare ophæver restriktionerne nu!” siger han. Jeg svarer, at det lissåvel kunne være, at de i Rom ville ånde lettede op, så de var fri for at skulle denne, ku’ man godt sige, banale sag igennem. Men det påvirker ikke biskoppen, – det er der jo intet, der gør!

– fortsættes

 

Reklamer

2 thoughts on “Hold ud, hold ud, hold ud!! (18)

  1. ORDLYDEN AF MIN KLAGE TIL ROM:

    Congregatio pro Clericis
    Palazzo delle Congregazioni
    Piazza Pio XII, 3
    00193 Roma
    Italy

    Att.: His Eminence Beniamino Cardinal Stella

    COMPLAINT OVER H. E. MSGR. CZESLAW KOZON – BISHOP OF COPENHAGEN

    Denmark is a small but wealthy country with only 40.000 Catholics out of a total population of 5,5 million people. We are about 75 Catholic priests in Denmark and in the latter years a great number of the priests suffer or have suffered from the conditions in the Diocese of Copenhagen. Recently a report has been ordered by the Danish state, regarding also the psychological environment in the Church, and currently the working conditions for the Catholic priests are being investigated. This letter, however, is only about my own personal problems. Others can tell their story.

    Please, let me introduce myself briefly. My name is Rev. Stephen Holm. I am 70 years of age and a native Dane. My parents were protestants, but already as a young teenager I was adopted in the Catholic Church. Later, after 11 years work as a teacher, I went to the seminary and at the age of 40, in May 1984, I was ordained a priest by Bishop Hans Martensen, RIP, and so in a month I can celebrate my 30 year jubilee as a priest.

    Ever since my ordination I have been, and I still am, happy in my vocation, but the last four years have been a very difficult and painful time with my local Pastor and Bishop, Msgr. Czeslaw Kozon.

    Since June 2012 I have been living under a so-called “pastoral, administrative disposition”, now for almost two years, in which the Bishop has forbidden me to do practically anything in his diocese. This includes what belongs to the priestly duties and obligations and what belongs to the duties and obligations of the laity. I can only consider it as a Church penalty cf. CIC can. 1336 §1, which diminishes my good reputation in the eyes of the public.

    The disposition of 20 June 2012 was sent to me by letter and announced publicly on the Website of the Diocese of Copenhagen with the reason “to impose order within the Diocese” and lead to headlines in the national newspapers such as “Sex-accused Priest Banned by Bishop!” (26 June 2012)

    A Canon Law Professor in Germany, whom I have contacted about my situation and case, is of the opinion, that the Bishop’s actions clearly go too far and he – as others of my fellow priests in the Diocese – has advised me not to postpone my complaint to the Congregation for the Clergy.

    And this is what I hereby do: Handing in my complaint over the Bishop of Copenhagen Msgr. Czeslaw Kozon.

    Throughout the years as a priest I have belonged to a group of priests with a notable profile. And this seems to have had its price. In 2008 two young men accused me of inappropriate sexual behavior in 1999/2000, when they were 20 and 23 years old The accusations were investigated correctly after CIC can. 1717. During the ecclesial pre-investigation, however, both young men withdrew their accusations and my Bishop, Msgr. Czeslaw Kozon, told me by letter of 15 November 2008, that the case was ended and would never be taken up again.

    In 2010 when the ”pedophile-wave” ruled over the Church and also reached the Church in Denmark, a man accused me for inappropriate sexual conduct 22 years earlier, when he was 17-18 years old. This was shortly after it was announced, that at the time a 13-years-old boy had received a financial compensation after accusations of inappropriate sexual behavior by the Bishop of Trondheim in Norway.

    At this time, the two previous investigated cases where once again taken out from the Bishop’s drawer and despite the Bishop’s promises of the opposite. I and three other priests were all suspended publicly. In contrast to CIC can. 1717, where, during the pre-investigation, the individual priest should be protected for the sake of his good reputation, the Bishop immediately suspended all of us. As a consequence of this step, we were all left to the ridicule of the public, and in the eyes of the public convicted as sexual offenders. This time the investigations were conducted by the local Police and thereafter by the Diocese of Copenhagen, but neither the Police nor the Church investigations found any evidence against us, and so the suspension was re-called one year after the investigations had started.

    Almost every media in Denmark have obviously shown the cases great attention and none of our priests have avoided stories about the allegations made against us. But not a single time has Msgr. Kozon defended us and I decided from the very beginning not to appear in the media although I often have been asked to do so. As already mentioned our diocese is rather small so even an unnamed priest can easily be identified. Since I definitely have been put on ice by Msgr. Kozon, I have my own personal Blog as well as I partici-pate in a Catholic group on Facebook.

    In connection with the allegations, the Diocese of Copenhagen initiated the work of a report conducted by an independent law firm at the cost of Eur. 500.000,-. In this report, which was published on 8 June 2012, Msgr. Kozon added topics to my case that are partly false, partly slandering and therefore in direct contra-diction with Danish civil law and my lawyer has advised me to sue the Bishop. This is, however, a step I do not wish to pursue due to my love for the Church, according to 1. Cor. 8.

    Due to the wrongful accusations I had a very difficult time personally and after agreement with the Bishop, I handed in my application for retirement from the three parishes I had served for more than 25 years and where I for more than 20 years organized pilgrimages to Germany, France and Fatima and a yearly here in Denmark together with Msgr. Dietrich Timmermann, RIP. My retirement application was accepted, and I left my parishes on 15 May 2011.

    After this very difficult and hard process, I looked forward to live a life of a retired priest, able to help, if I was asked to do so – for instance to one of the 8 parishes, where I during the years have initiated sufficient funds for new musical organs. But here I was wrong. Over the next years the list of things that I am no longer allowed to do, has grown practically by the day. Here is a very brief summary of things, that my Bishop has prohibited me to do:

    1. May 2011: I was no longer allowed to live within the boundaries of my former three parishes, where I had served since 1984 and I was prohibited to celebrate or concelebrate Mass in my former parishes. (E-mail-correspondence).

    2. October 2011: By order from bishop Kozon I moved into a house, found by myself, organized by the Diocese in the little town of Soroe where I with the Bishop’s approval established a Chapel, where I can celebrate the daily Mass and invite people to participate. During my nearly 30 years a priest I have not failed to celebrate the daily Mass one single time and I can with good conscience say that I daily have done at least one good thing. This place in Soroe, which I share with a lay-brother, is beautiful and in my present life a big joy, just as my financial conditions are irreproachable.

    3. December 2011: In my new parish, my parish priest was prohibited by Msgr. Kozon to let me celebrate or concelebrate Mass in my new parish-church. This was ordered by Msgr. Kozon through my parish priest, and was never directly communicated to me.

    4. Decree and letter of 13 December 2011: The ecclesial approval of our small community, dated 8 December 1998 – and in accordance with CIC can. 298-311 and CIC can. 321-326, which I had created together with a confrére and a lay brother – is withdrawn. The withdrawal is communicated through an executive order by Msgr. Kozon without any foregoing dialogue with us. And publicly announced on the Church’s Website.

    5. 20 June 2012: The “pastoral, administrative disposition”, with the prohibition is extended and forbids me to do any liturgical functions anywhere in the Diocese of Copenhagen, which means all of Denmark. This includes the prohibition to function as lector, acolyte and organist. This was, as already told, publicly announced on the Church’s Website.

    6. Letter of 16 July 2013 from the Vicar General: I was removed from the list of possible candidates to the clerical council.

    7. September 2013: In my new parish, I am no longer allowed to function as a secretary for the Parish Council. This was told me by my parish-priest, and confirmed by Bishop Kozon when I telephoned him about the matter.

    8. Letter of 16 January 2014: Msgr. Czeslaw Kozon announced, that in his diocese I am no longer allowed to perform any parish duty outside my home, whether helping to choose psalms, do sacristan duties or any other task whatsoever . (However the Vicar General of the Diocese, Msgr. Lars Messerschmidt, has given me a celebret, for celebrating Mass outside the Diocese of Copenhagen).

    The entire situation has had consequences for my general health. Besides the normal problems for my age, my general doctor says, that sleeplessness, high blood pressure, two blood clots in the leg and a minor outbreak of psoriasis is a consequence of the psychological stress I am suffering from.

    According to the Bishop of Copenhagen – I have learned from present members of the parish-council in my new parish – there are three reasons for the extended list of things I at the present time are not allowed to do, including the prohibition to celebrate the Holy Mass outside my home:

    a) The above mentioned accusations against me, – although the accusations against me were dropped both by the local Police and the Church.

    b) My strong personality. I am not allowed to be the person I am. A desirable “Low profile” is an expression used by the Bishop.

    c) My participation in social media (a catholic Facebook group and my personal blog).

    In my humble opinion, the reason for Msgr. Czeslaw Kozon’s opposition towards me is because he doesn’t approve of my personality and my personal style. And I could say the same about him and his style. His luxurious household and seemingly endless travelling around Europe, also to celebrate masses anywhere according to the Tridentine Rite is against what I believe in. Perhaps due to this, neither Msgr. Czeslaw Kozon nor his Vicar General have had the energy to drive the 70 km from Copenhagen to visit me just one single time since April 2010 during these for me very difficult times, also not during the last three months, where the Vicar General has served as a substitute for my parish priest, 14 km from here. I have several times e-mailed him, – without getting any replies.

    Bishop Kozon did send me the obligatory three bottles of wine for my 70-years birthday, but he had seemingly not understood my need for parental attention, which I have let him know. This leaves me with a sense of feeling that the Bishop doesn’t care about me and my situation, and that he has failed his pastoral, spiritual and human duties towards me. My impression has always been that the local Bishop, the local Pastor of the Church, was supposed to care about his entrusted flock and the priests working with him to proclaim the Good News.

    I do not understand the logic behind the decisions made by Msgr. Czeslaw Kozon in my case. All accusations against me were unsubstantial, and since both the investigations conducted by the Church herself and the local Police were without substance, I simply do not comprehend the situation I am in right now, where I am not allowed to perform any liturgical acts or anything else as a catholic outside my home.

    In this regard I have the following three questions:

    1. Is it really in accordance with Church norms and laws, that a priest, where no guilt is proved, should be punished in this way for two years, or more?

    2. Is it in accordance with the rights and duties of the local Bishop not to visit a confrère in the priesthood when the priest is in grave distress and suffers due to false accusations made against him? And this even after having been invited several times.

    3. How do I proceed in order to be “restored” as a priest in my homeland with the rights to perform the sacred liturgy?

    Regarding my third questions, I have on several occasions approached the Msgr. Czeslaw Kozon. I have tried to take up my situation on several occasions but without any luck.

    As I am getting closer to the eternal life, I have a strong urge to be allowed to live a normal life of a priest without the many restriction, that have been imposed on my priestly vocation. The priests in Denmark, who would like to use me as a priest should be able to do so. Just as I freely should be able to participate in the concelebrations in the Diocese.

    Last year at the Chrism Mass I was not even invited – nor to the Holy Mass nor to the priestly dinner afterwards. Also this year, I have not been invited! I live with the feeling of being isolated and non-existing.

    My lawyer has offered to look into the question of the lack of recognition of my human rights as concerns the freedom of speech inter alia. As above this is a step I do not wish to pursue due to my love for the Church.

    My sincere hope is, that the Congregation for the Clergy can help me in my pledge to be able to live my priestly vocation in my homeland once again. I have on several occasions approached the Bishop of Copenhagen, Msgr. Czeslaw Kozon and I have tried to take up my situation on several occasions but without any luck.

    I surely know, that the way e. g. the Fathers John of the Cross, Louis-Marie de Montfort and Pio Pietrelcina were treated, was much worse than me in my situation. But they were holy men. I am simply just a priest.

    I am prepared to come to Rome at your request, just as I can send you copies of letters/e-mails from Bishop Kozon, and letters of recommendations from faithful parishioners in the Diocese.

    With the assurance of my prayers, I am Yours devotedly in Christ and Mary

    02. of April 2014
    Rev. Stephen Holm

  2. Ja, vi trak os i Kalundborg i protest over biskoppens behandling af vores gamle sognepræst. Vi meddelte vist også, at vi ville kontakte pressen desangående, selvom vi have meget lille forhåbning om, at det ville interessere den. Imidlertid kontaktede en journalist mig i andet ærinde og i den forbindelse fortalte jeg ham, at vi – hele menighedsrådet – havde trukket os i protest over biskoppens ageren og DET var han meget interesseret i, så det endte med at stå i dagspressen, men naturligvis kom der intet om det, hverken på kirkens hjemmeside eller i Katolsk Orientering. Så det med orientering var det så som så med dengang i det blad. 😉

Skriv et svar

Udfyld dine oplysninger nedenfor eller klik på et ikon for at logge ind:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterer med din WordPress.com konto. Log Out /  Skift )

Google photo

Du kommenterer med din Google konto. Log Out /  Skift )

Twitter picture

Du kommenterer med din Twitter konto. Log Out /  Skift )

Facebook photo

Du kommenterer med din Facebook konto. Log Out /  Skift )

Connecting to %s