'AMSTERDAM'
THE DECLARATIONS OF MSGR J.M. PUNT
AN ANALYSIS
During the second Dutch prayerday of the Lady of all Nations,
which took place on June 8, 2002 in the Jaap Edenhal in Amsterdam, Msgr Punt
announced to the approx. 1500 faithful present, that in a letter to about
thirty bishops all over the world, he has pronounced that he, according to his
judgement, came to the conclusion that the apparitions of the Lady of all
Nations consist of a supernatural origin. The bishop said: "In light
and virtue of all these recommendations, testimonies and developments, and in
pondering all this in prayer and theological reflection, I have come to the
conclusion that the apparitions of the Lady of all Nations in Amsterdam consist
of a supernatural origin..." This all can be read in the bishop's
letter dated May 31, 2002 in which he answers questions about the Amsterdam
apparitions. For the full text of the letter see the end of this article.
In our AVE Newsletter number 2 of June 2001 we already
formulated our point of view on the apparitions and the recent statements from
the bishop did not alter our point of view. As a matter of fact this new
development induced us to make further inquiries into the case of the Lady of
all Nations.
THE LETTER OF MAY 31, 2002: RECOGNITION OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE APPARITIONS OF THE 'LADY'
IN AMSTERDAM
The bishop asserts: "As bishop of Haarlem/Amsterdam,
I have been requested to make a statement regarding the authenticity of the
apparitions of Mary as the Lady of all Nations in Amsterdam during the years of
1945-1959. Many members of the faithful and bishops have emphasized the urgency
for clarification. I also have been personally aware that this development of
devotion, which has spanned over 50 years, call for this." This is a
very peculiar pronouncement. The declarations made by the various Commissions
who examined the case several times before, by previous bishops (Huibers/1956 -
Zwartkruis/1972) and the repeated declarations from the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith were clear and explicit enough: the events of Amsterdam
do not consist of a supernatural
origin.
Msgr Bomers (1983-1998) was put under high pressure by
the fanatic proponents. They managed to induce the bishop to approve the public
devotion of Mary under the title of 'Lady of all Nations' (letter dated May 31,
1996, also signed by his then auxiliary bishop Msgr Punt). And on June 20,1997
Msgr Bomers declared that there are no objections against the veneration of
Mary under the same title.
To separate the devotion from its source is very
strange indeed and not logical at all. Msgr. Bomers action caused quite a lot
of confusion and defied the authority of former bishops and of Rome.
Nota bene: On May 22, 1998 Msgr Bomers informed Mr.
Waterinckx of Brugge, Belgium, by letter that he does not recognize the
supernaturality of Amsterdam...!!!
In a letter, black on white, with the bishops' signature... This statement was
made considerable time after his declarations of May 31, 1996 and June 20, 1997
and this indicates that if Msgr Bomers had still been here, the situation would
probably have remained unchanged.
"Many members of the faithful and bishops have
emphasized the urgency..."
But the reaction of the Dutch bishops was rather halfhearted. When Msgr Punt,
during question time before a bishops conference was closed, made reference to
his 'recognition' of the 'Lady', his colleagues simply took a note of it. No
congratulations. Apparently his colleagues are better informed about 'The Lady'
than the bishop of the Haarlem Diocese. People are now already drawing lines
between Amsterdam and Fatima, even by some newspapers. But how different was
the approval of Fatima in 1930!? That was a real celebration. And soon
afterwards there was an enormous national pilgrimage in gratitude of all
Portugese bishops to Fatima. But Msgr Punt seems to be solitary amongst the
bishops in the Netherlands.
About what and to whom the bishop wants to speak out?
Msgr Punt says that he has observed that the devotion
has taken its place in the spiritual life of millions all over the world, and
that it possesses the support of many bishops. According to us this is a rather
exaggerated statement. We found out that, especially abroad, only relatively
small groups are enthusiastic about Amsterdam and that the devotion is of very
limited significance. Moreover we found out that people outside the Netherlands
are informed one-sidedly and amongst others never heard of the repeated
statements from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is true that
prayer cards are distributed by the thousands in many countries and in many
languages but one cannot say that because of this the devotion has taken its
place in the spiritual life of millions all over the world... Thousands of
pilgrims come to Fatima and Lourdes daily and during high-days hundreds
of thousands. An annual prayerday in Amsterdam attracts 1500 pilgrims only...
So, one cannot say that there is an untenable situation, like Mr. Soffner of
the Supervisory Commission stated and consequently there is no sound argument
why the bishop had to speak out about the authenticity.
The question to what extent these 'apparitions' have
been bearing fruits cannot be simply answered. An impartial investigation into
this could be held. But some 'other' fruits have already appeared: the hard
core of 'The Lady' are of the opinion that you have to believe in 'The Lady' to
be a Roman Catholic. They consider believing in 'The Lady' as a criterion for
the orthodoxy. In that way 'The Lady' acts like seeds of disruption and for
this reason 'The Lady' cannot be from heaven.
"It is primarily the task of the local bishop to speak
out in conscience regarding the authenticity of private revelations that take
place or have taken place within his diocese." Rightly so, but this was already done sufficiently by
his predecessors, unless the present bishop can prove beyond any doubt that his
predecessor were utterly wrong. He cannot act as if he were the first bishop to
speak out and ignore the well-founded conclusions of his predecessors. If this
step would be right, his successor would have as much right to revoke it (which
is not as improbable as it seems, because many, clergy, intellectuals ,
theologians and members of the faithful consider the happenings of Amsterdam as
heresy).
In his letter of May 31, 2002 Msgr Punt says a.o.:
that he has asked once again for the advice of theologians and psychologists
concerning outcomes of previous investigations, and the questions and
objections deriving from them. Who are these experts? Did the bishop also
ask the opinion of the skeptics? How was the investigation carried out? Has
there been an investigation into the apparitions in itself or was the
investigation meant to look into the propagation of the devotion only? Did the
experts examine the foundations? Did they thoroughly study previous
investigations and take the outcome of this into honest consideration? If only
the kind of spiritual fruits a devotion delivers is taken into consideration,
then the authenticity of Medjugorje
could be approved as well, because many bishops and theologians enthusiastically
speak about the fruits of Medjugorje. But this is not a good argument at all.
The right argument goes into the foundation of it: the apparitions in itself! A
commission also has to follow criteria given by Rome. Did they do so? Former
Commissions as well as prominent theologians did see objections, theological as
well as psychological. They concluded that the messages did not come, could not
have come, from heaven, that Mary never revealed herself in this way and that
the revelations did not consist of a supernatural origin, whereupon Msgr.
Huibers in 1955 declared that taken into consideration the contents of the
messages and also the circumstances of the events, nothing can be found which
cannot be explained entirely in a normal and natural fashion. Had those former
experts and bishops it all wrong? Does Msgr Punt understand the importance of
the investigations of former Commissions, of his predecessors and the
confirmations of these by Rome? Does he understand, taken into consideration
all previous negative declarations, that his investigation should go
much further, much deeper into the matter. The Holy Office (now: Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith) declared on August 25, 1961: "After
ample consideration the Holy Office has decided that the matter is definite and
that one should not revert to it." This was confirmed again in 1974
and in 1987.
"In light and virtue of all these
recommendations, testimonies and developments, and in pondering all this in
prayer and theological reflection, I have come to the conclusion that the apparitions
of the Lady of all Nations in Amsterdam consist of a supernatural origin",
Msgr Punt professes. Apparently the
bishop disregards all former recommendations, testimonies and developments,
does not mind anything and just follows the recommendations of 'some
theologians and psychologists' whom he once again asked for advice. It
is simple enough to ask for advice from people of whom you know that they are
behind your cause. But it will be clear that such an advice is of little to no
value at all. For such an important cause, of great importance to the
Worldchurch, one could expect that a Commission would be set up, in which
theologians, psychologists and other influential experts, proponents and
sceptics would participate.
"Also authentic images and visions are always
transmitted to us, - to use the words
of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith -, through the filter of our senses, which carry out a work of
translation..." and "...are influenced by the potentialities and
limitations of the perceiving subject." To use this pronouncement of
Cardinal Ratzinger (Cardinal Ratzinger, Theological Commentary In Preparation
for the Release of the Third Part of the Secret of Fatima, L'Osservatore
Romano, June 28, 2000) in this context is wrong and misplaced. Obviously Msgr
Punt wants to cover himself against the frequently made objection that the
alleged seer of Amsterdam was not a very exact person and not clear in het
expressions; they were often vague. The comparison with the children of Fatima
is misplaced because in Fatima the children were very exact and what they saw
and heard was clearly imprinted on their memories. It was all precise, concrete
and reliable and of completely different and incomparably higher order of
experience than the reports of Ida Peerdeman of Amsterdam. In Fatima Mary made
predictions which came true. Take for instance the miracle of the sun. Apart
from unintelligible statements Mary never made clear predictions in Amsterdam
and if they were made, never came true. Influences from the world around the
seer were more than often the basic elements of the so-called apparitions.
"Unlike Holy Scripture, private revelations are
never binding upon the conscience of the faithful", Msgr Punt said. Correct, but if a bishop throws his
weight in the scale, announcing that he recognizes some alleged supernatural
event, he plays on the conscience of the faithful.
But the not-binding character of a bishop's
pronouncement does not release the bishop of his duty to make a thorough
investigation whereby the results of all former investigations will be taken
along. Furthermore Msgr Punt should realize that his 'approval' is not so
non-committal as it sounds, because proponents will continue to strive for the
dogma, as is asked for in the 'messages'.
Though a
private revelation may never be binding upon the conscience of the
faithful, it nevertheless is thrusted upon you in some churches. Those who want
to pray the special prayer of 'The Lady' should do so in private gatherings in
order not to burden or irritate the faithful who have no affinity with
'Amsterdam'.
"And the signs of our times are dramatic. The
devotion of the Lady of all Nations can help us, in my sincere conviction, in
guiding us on the right path during the present serious drama of our times, the
path to a new and special outpouring of the Holy Spirit", so the bishop says. It is not strange to believe that
the Holy Spirit comes to our help also in our times. But is it the Holy Spirit
who speaks in the messages to the seer Ida Peerdeman, messages which are of
dubious help, very much confused and debatable and even silly. The exalted
expectations of a special coming of the Holy Spirit is akin to and paves the
way to sensational end-of-the-time thinking and feeling, that something
mysterious, something special will happen that will change this decadent world,
a kind of feeling similar to that of the Pentecostal movement.
THE LETTER OF JUNE 18, 2002: ONLY RECOGNITION OF THE
DEVOTION
In a letter, dated June 18, 2002, addressed to the
faithful of the Haarlem Diocese (a sort of a pastoral writing, but which was
not) Msgr Punt wrote: "Undoubtedly you have heard of the approval which
I gave to the devotion of Mary as the Lady of all Nations." and "What
I have said is that to my sincere conviction this devotion is in fact authentic
and comes from God."
Contrary to what Msgr Punt announced in his letter of
May 31, 2002, viz. "...I have come to the conclusion that the
apparitions of the Lady of all Nations in Amsterdam consist of a supernatural
origin" he casually and only once used the word 'apparitions' in this
letter of June, 18. So de bishop now says that he approves the devotion to Mary
as the Lady of all Nations and that to his sincere conviction the devotion is
'in fact' authentic. As the devotion was already publicly allowed in 1996 and
in 1997, the contents of this letter to the faithful in the Haarlem diocese was
not very sensational, certainly not to those who had not heard of the letter
dated May 31, 2002, because many people (wrongly) believed that the devotion
had been approved already in 1996/1997. Now some people, rightly or wrongly,
got the impression that the bishop climbed down, that he, in his letter of June
18, was somewhat premature, spoke before his turn.
Possibly the confusion is even greater now.
Because of this remarkable manoeuver opponents and
proponents are more divided than ever before.
Many people may now believe that the bishop has
approved the authenticity of the apparitions. He has indeed done so in his
letter of May 31, 2002 to a number of bishops and at the prayerday on June 8,
2002. But in his letter to the faithful of June 18, 2002 he does not mention
the authenticity of the apparitions of 'The Lady' at all but only mentions the
approval of the devotion. It seems that he backs out from the approval of the
authenticity of the apparitions.
What now is the status of 'The Lady'? What is against
a bishop being explicit? A bishop too may be mistaken in such matters. This
occurred several times in church history but was later on set right.
In our opinion it is Msgr Punt task now to provide
clarity in this matter. That is his duty as bishop. And the faithful have the
right to get it. Furthermore it is desirable to investigate whether the
approval of the devotion is misplaced because, according to our opinion, the
approval of the devotion (1996) also means, to a certain extent, approval
of the apparitions (see our Newsletter
number 2 of June 2001 for an explicit explanation). Furthermore also the
approval of 'The Lady of Akita' should be reexamined by the local bishop or the
bishops conference in conjunction with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith. The church can too easily be influenced by such very questionable
'apparitions' which are propagated worldwide for the purpose of a certain
ideology.
Msgr Punt further declared: "For me a sign of
supernaturalness is also the strong Trinitarian and Christocentric character of
the devotion. Mary repeatedly points to Him and the cross." This
explanation is irrational, one only has to look at the image of the 'Lady', who
places herself before the cross (without the body of Christ on it!),
focusing the attention to herself and not to Christ. In fact, she takes the
cross all for herself! Her posture is brazen, the expression on het face is
commanding. Yet, the real Mary was humbly standing under the cross, not
in a victorious posture, but suffering.
"The Supervisory Commission will draw up a list
of questions and remarks and evaluate these to the best of their ability", bishop Punt says. This Supervisory Commission only
just started with its work and it should get a chance to come forward with
something tangible. Does a Supervisory Commission differ from a Commission of
Inquiry? What is the sense of a forgoing approval? Are the members of the new
Supervisory Commission independent, unprejudiced and do they have sufficient
expertise? Who appointed the members of the Supervisory Commission? What is
their background? Is there within the Commission room for experts who, in
accordance with the declarations made by the church from the beginning until
the 'approval' by Msgr Punt, will be in a position to dispute the authenticity
of the 'apparitions' and the 'messages' of 'The Lady'? Questions to which many
would like to get an answer in order to avert the pretense of prejudiced
cliquism.
THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
What can now be expected from the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith? Rome repeatedly declared that the apparitions are not
supernatural. As recent as 1987 the Congregation confirmed that the declaration
of May 25, 1974 concerning alleged apparitions in Amsterdam has neither been
revoked nor altered and as a consequence remains in force in full. (See AVE
Newsletter number 2 of June, 2001).
IN CONCLUSION
It is an undeniable fact that the 'Lady of all Nations
movement' draws lots of gullible people (and clergy too) who also believe in
other so-called apparitions. You can fill in the examples yourself. With each
supposedly supernatural phenomenon a sense of devotion is created by certain
people. Other people who have carefully studied the 'case of Amsterdam' and the
confusing, questionable and sometimes silly and occult messages, wonder how it
is possible that fanatic headstrong persons could have come that far with
'Amsterdam' and read with disbelief Msgr Punt's declaration.
The success of Amsterdam and many other
apparitions/phenomenon is mainly the result of propaganda made by some very
closely involved people and/or of commercial interest. Amsterdam came into the
spot-light thanks to Msgr Hnilica (a bishop who, according to some people, has
never been able to prove that he was ordained as bishop) and father Paul Sigl,
who, after they tried in vain to get involved in Medjugorje and with the
meanwhile exposed impostor Theresa Lopez of Denver USA, travel the wold in
order to promote Amsterdam, whereby they do not hesitate to misuse Fatima (at
Fatima's strong displeasure), to manipulate with Fatima and to call Amsterdam
the fulfillment of Fatima. The question remains by what authority Msgr Hnilica
and father Sigl operate in Amsterdam.
Let us pray, for all of us who need it, for
enlightenment from the Holy Spirit.