Mail



Sexual abuse in the Church (following)

I would like to point out an affirmation in the article “The difficult question of financial reparation for victims” by Xavier Le Normand published on October 29. “Legally, dioceses exist through diocesan associations. As provided for in the law of 1905, these entities have as their sole object the exercise of worship. It is therefore not possible for them to make donations, and therefore to pay sums to victims. ” It seems to me that there is a false problem there. In fact, the dioceses take charge of many types of contributions. I will cite as an example only the diocese of Paris, including the auditor’s report on the accounts for the financial year 2020 (published in Official newspaper) mentions in operating expenses an amount of 7.7 million euros which concerns “The Cathedral School (formation of seminarians), the permanent formation of priests, the nursing home Marie-Thérèse and the Maison Chateaubriand, the student chaplaincies, the Childhood-Adolescence pastoral, but also the contribution to the UADF (Union diocesan associations of France), support for the most fragile dioceses of the PEP or payments for the benefit of the new Evangelization ”. The exercise of worship can therefore be taken in the broad sense. To go further, it would be necessary to know better the honestly consolidated / combined amount of the assets of the French dioceses. Thus for the diocese of Paris, and according to the previous document, the fixed assets published (mainly real estate and financial securities) amounted to 477 million euros gross, to 334 million euros net. Finally, it would be good to wonder about the justification for financing up to two-thirds by the State via tax relief, for these “repair” charges.

Anne Landier-Juglar

—-

Among the actions suggested in the recommendations of the Sauvé report, there is one that refers to the payment of compensation … a kind of financial compensation. I wonder, and I question us, on the systematic payment, to all, of a financial fine: how can it cure a moral and spiritual offense, is not this ambiguous? What do the victims themselves think? Are we not all members of the Church, and therefore in communion with all? Is it not the action of the justice of men which must be pronounced here? Is there a passage in the Gospel which suggests this way of repairing the offense done to men and therefore to God? Shouldn’t reparation first be a request for forgiveness? (…)

André Colombel

—-

Bible reading (following)

As the reader writes in the letter of November 5, the translations of the Bible are manifold. He quotes a few and ends as follows: “Among these translations, let the reader choose ‘the one that suits’. ” There are, in fact, various forms of “Bible practice”. But when and how do we give readers the choice of ” the appropriate translation ” ? At Mass, the translation is collective, institutional, liturgical and sacramental. And the framework for the comments is the preaching. In short, practitioners do not choose their translation, nor their meaning. In personal prayer, contemplation, or a retreat, the choice of translation may in fact be left to the reader, but it is the qualification of “the one that fits” that is then more difficult to honor. There is also catechesis, and teaching in Catholic institutes, or in other places of religious formation. In these various settings, the text itself often and quickly passes into the hands of the teacher. There remains a form of reading, which has made its way for a long time in the world. They are regular groups, of a small number (say about thirty), with a leader, and if possible the leader of the local church. In this practice, the question of the choice of translation is no longer the primary target. It is about paying attention to the words of the readers, echoing what we have just read. (…) When the word circulates, with the help of the facilitator, can then come the discovery that we do not read the same things in the same text. (…)

Jean-Pierre Duplantier

—-

Restoration of Notre-Dame

As I read the article of December 9 on the restoration of Notre-Dame, I think of Saint-François de Molitor, our parish. As you probably know, it was built about twenty years ago on an idea of ​​Cardinal Lustiger to mark the assembly that meets to speak and celebrate Christ. The church is therefore in the form of an assembly and the altar is in the middle, the baptistery at the entrance. I like this device which means that we look at each other as sisters and brothers in our communication with Christ, being together, instead of the old formula of churches where we only see the back of our brother! In this difficult job of restoring Notre-Dame, it seems to me that it would be good to take into account the present time, as was the case in the past, with Viollet-le-Duc for example. And therefore to try to better concretize the concept of assembly in the organization of the interior of the cathedral. By organizing, for example, a hemicycle around the main altar and by reflecting on the connection of this hemicycle with the nave which is difficult to use in this spirit. Perhaps for the nave by turning the chairs facing the central aisle that would be better used in the celebration? Difficult … But I think we should think about it in this direction. It is also understood that these arrangements are made to celebrate Christ, visitors / tourists ultimately participate in their own way by coming to “see”!

Jacques Remond

.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *