Mike Hyland Joe Mulrooney
On behalf of Advent Group, England.
15th⢠November, 2002.
Dear Heinz-J,
Thank you for your letter and documentation. Let us leave entirely aside the affair of Lambert van Gelder. That is the past and we are more concerned with the future of the International Association of Married Priests. The main concern of this letter is the "proposal" for a North Atlantic Federation.
Let us establish first of all what was decided and voted on at the Assembly in Madrid. The decision was that steps would be taken to consult the various national groups with a view to setting up a European federation, granted that the South American countries had reasonably set up their own federation. In that context the question was posed for discussion and consultation as to the position of North America i.e. The United States and Canada. Would they align themselves with South America or form their own North American federation?
In Anthony Padovano's documentation (6111. October 2002) it states that" A strong proposal has come from a number of European groups to form a North Atlantic Federation of Catholic Married Priests". Included in this federation would be Canada and the United States Qf Canada chases to join!), Austria, Belgium, England, France, Germany, Ireland and Netherlands.
You requested from us, at least in writing if we could not attend the meeting which has already been called, our reaction to this proposal.
1. Nowhere are we given a list of the European groups from which this proposal originated. England is included in the list of possible participants is such a fashion that it creates the impression that we had been consulted in advance and were in agreement. We would have been less furious if at least we had been consulted in advance on a hypothetical possibility. Instead we are presented with a very concrete proposal, already setting out structure and aims etc and presented in a manner which presumes our participation. We have checked with Alex Walker, chair of Advent, and he assures us that he was not consulted.
2. We stand by what was discussed and voted through at Madrid and we await the consultations on the feasibility of a European Federation.
3. We are intrigued as to the motivation(s) behind this proposal. On the one hand Anthony talks of"a greater possibility for practical action and closer cultural focus on common problems". As regards practical action the Atlantic is very, very wide. You, on the other hand, are more explicit re the cultural aspect. You express the desire to create "a European sub-federation, as envisioned by the decision of the General Assembly, and possibly without - or with less influence of the Spanish Group". A few very generalised statistical facts are, I think, relevant here:
The number of Spanish speaking Catholics as a percentage of the Catholic
Church. The percentage increases if we add in the Portuguese and the Italians who are also left out of the North Atlantic federation.
The high Spanish population in the USA. (I leave you to look up the figures.)
What really is the motivation here?
Is it racist? - They are not white Northern Europeans.
Is it theological? - They have an exciting liberation theology stance which is hard to stomach.
Is it about power? - That the old guard cannot face stepping down (Should the Pope resign?)
4. Whatever, we do not go along with this for the following reasons:
a. Fundamentally because of our ecclesiological stance: "That all may be one"(John 17:20-23).
b. Also because we see evidence of a pressure group operating outside and without recourse to the democratic structures of the international executive committee and assembly and trying to push the movement in a direction which was not envisaged at the last general assembly.
c. At the last general assembly a vote was taken to abolish the hard copy of Ministerium Novum and to disseminate that type of material to the national groups through E-mail or web site. The proposal that this North Atlantic Federation will "revive"as its own journal what is not dead, but simply moved into another medium, overturns that vote.. In terms of England's possible financial contribution this is financial madness.
d. The last paragraph of Anthony's documentation - "The executive committee of the International Confederation will be informed of all these matters at its January 10,2003 meeting in Brussels" - contains:
An error of fact. There is as yet no International Confederation. That may well be the next step depending on the decisions of the next assembly
A sin against humility in that the executive committee which we elected "will be u?formed", presumably as a fait accompli.
Yours sincerely,
Mike Hyland
Joe Mulrooney
After consultation with Alex Walker, chair of Advent.
Copies to: Alex Walker(Advent chair), Aitor Orube(Chair of executive committee), Paul Bourgeois and Claude Bei-tin(Committee members), Julio Pinillos (an interested party).
On behalf of Advent Group, England.
15th⢠November, 2002.
Dear Heinz-J,
Thank you for your letter and documentation. Let us leave entirely aside the affair of Lambert van Gelder. That is the past and we are more concerned with the future of the International Association of Married Priests. The main concern of this letter is the "proposal" for a North Atlantic Federation.
Let us establish first of all what was decided and voted on at the Assembly in Madrid. The decision was that steps would be taken to consult the various national groups with a view to setting up a European federation, granted that the South American countries had reasonably set up their own federation. In that context the question was posed for discussion and consultation as to the position of North America i.e. The United States and Canada. Would they align themselves with South America or form their own North American federation?
In Anthony Padovano's documentation (6111. October 2002) it states that" A strong proposal has come from a number of European groups to form a North Atlantic Federation of Catholic Married Priests". Included in this federation would be Canada and the United States Qf Canada chases to join!), Austria, Belgium, England, France, Germany, Ireland and Netherlands.
You requested from us, at least in writing if we could not attend the meeting which has already been called, our reaction to this proposal.
1. Nowhere are we given a list of the European groups from which this proposal originated. England is included in the list of possible participants is such a fashion that it creates the impression that we had been consulted in advance and were in agreement. We would have been less furious if at least we had been consulted in advance on a hypothetical possibility. Instead we are presented with a very concrete proposal, already setting out structure and aims etc and presented in a manner which presumes our participation. We have checked with Alex Walker, chair of Advent, and he assures us that he was not consulted.
2. We stand by what was discussed and voted through at Madrid and we await the consultations on the feasibility of a European Federation.
3. We are intrigued as to the motivation(s) behind this proposal. On the one hand Anthony talks of"a greater possibility for practical action and closer cultural focus on common problems". As regards practical action the Atlantic is very, very wide. You, on the other hand, are more explicit re the cultural aspect. You express the desire to create "a European sub-federation, as envisioned by the decision of the General Assembly, and possibly without - or with less influence of the Spanish Group". A few very generalised statistical facts are, I think, relevant here:
The number of Spanish speaking Catholics as a percentage of the Catholic
Church. The percentage increases if we add in the Portuguese and the Italians who are also left out of the North Atlantic federation.
The high Spanish population in the USA. (I leave you to look up the figures.)
What really is the motivation here?
Is it racist? - They are not white Northern Europeans.
Is it theological? - They have an exciting liberation theology stance which is hard to stomach.
Is it about power? - That the old guard cannot face stepping down (Should the Pope resign?)
4. Whatever, we do not go along with this for the following reasons:
a. Fundamentally because of our ecclesiological stance: "That all may be one"(John 17:20-23).
b. Also because we see evidence of a pressure group operating outside and without recourse to the democratic structures of the international executive committee and assembly and trying to push the movement in a direction which was not envisaged at the last general assembly.
c. At the last general assembly a vote was taken to abolish the hard copy of Ministerium Novum and to disseminate that type of material to the national groups through E-mail or web site. The proposal that this North Atlantic Federation will "revive"as its own journal what is not dead, but simply moved into another medium, overturns that vote.. In terms of England's possible financial contribution this is financial madness.
d. The last paragraph of Anthony's documentation - "The executive committee of the International Confederation will be informed of all these matters at its January 10,2003 meeting in Brussels" - contains:
An error of fact. There is as yet no International Confederation. That may well be the next step depending on the decisions of the next assembly
A sin against humility in that the executive committee which we elected "will be u?formed", presumably as a fait accompli.
Yours sincerely,
Mike Hyland
Joe Mulrooney
After consultation with Alex Walker, chair of Advent.
Copies to: Alex Walker(Advent chair), Aitor Orube(Chair of executive committee), Paul Bourgeois and Claude Bei-tin(Committee members), Julio Pinillos (an interested party).