Schoenstatt Apostolic Movement

News

By

Message from the General Presidency of the Schoenstatt Work

Message from the General Presidency of the Schoenstatt Work

After the announcement by the Diocese of Trier of a new Historical Commission for the process of beatification of Father Kentenich, the General Presidium of the International Schoenstatt Work addresses the Schoenstatt Family throughout the world with a letter. The Presidium emphasizes that they want to “respond to the many justified questions, irritations, and demands for transparency. Some things have been held back “too long out of consideration and for the protection of persons and communities”, but God speaks through the events: “In faith in Providence we understand that we should learn new things. Through questions and criticism, God wants to help us advance, to let us grow”, said Father Juan Pablo Catoggio ISch, President of the Presidium. The letter in its entirety:

(Text by Heinrich Brehm)

Dear Schoenstatt Family throughout the world!

Yesterday, Bishop Stephan Ackermann of Trier announced that he will appoint a new historical commission in the process of beatification for our father and founder, Father Joseph Kentenich. The task of these experts, the majority of whom do not belong to the Schoenstatt Movement, will be to collect and evaluate those documents in the Vatican Archives that have only recently been released for research.

This concerns the documents from Pope Pius XII’s term of office that relate to Father Kentenich and Schoenstatt. We very much welcome this decision of the Bishop, since in this way the clarification of the questions regarding the person and actions of Father Kentenich will continue to be done in collaboration with the Diocese of Trier and those responsible for the beatification process (Cf. press release)

We understand that the Schoenstatt Family throughout the world expects initiatives from us that respond to the many justified questions, confusions and demands for transparency. You rightly expect that the history of Father Kentenich, the history of Schoenstatt, and the history of the Sisters be more openly and transparently processed and communicated to the Schoenstatt Family. We recognize that we have held back for too long out of consideration and for the protection of persons and communities.

God speaks through events. In faith in Providence we understand that we have to learn new things. Through questions and criticism God wants to lead us forward and help us grow.

We are aware that at present statements and texts are published from many sources and shared in social networks. In this way you are searching for answers to the questions you have at the moment.  This is understandable. It is important to us that the relevant texts of our founder or individual historical documents can be understood from their context. Leaders of the Movement in the local areas are trying to provide help in this regard. In addition, in the near future, coordinated by a small team, information and documentation material in various languages on the historical events will be continuously made available to you. This will be done through our official website www.schoenstatt.com. We will also take the necessary steps from our side to examine the material of the archives that are now accessible.

If you have any questions or suggestions, you are welcome to contact our International Coordination Office in Schoenstatt at communication@schoenstatt.com. As far as possible, we will be at your disposal.

We are convinced that this clarification process on various levels will bring the truth into full light and thus also allow for a more objective and comprehensive understanding of the person, way of acting and charism of Father Kentenich.

On the anniversary of the priestly ordination of our father, which we celebrate today, we unite with him and with one another in prayer precisely at this moment. In his footsteps we seek the truth in faithfulness.

P. Juan Pablo Catoggio

Juan Pablo Catoggio

The General Presidium of the Schoenstatt Work

Schoenstatt, July 8, 2020

By

Appointment of a New Commission of Historians for the Beatification Process of Father Joseph Kentenich

Appointment of a New Commission of Historians for the Beatification Process of Father Joseph Kentenich

The Diocese of Trier will appoint a new commission of historians for the beatification process of Father Joseph Kentenich. It will have in particular the task “to collect all now accessible documents of the Vatican Archive that in some way relate to this beatification process, and to assess their significance.”

This can be seen in a declaration of the Diocese of Trier which was published today after a conversation between Bishop Stephan Ackermann and Dr. Georg Holkenbrink, Director of the Diocesan Tribunal of Trier, as well as with representatives of the International Schoenstatt Movement. The Schoenstatt Movement expressly welcomes this step and hopes that further transparency and clarity regarding the person, life, and work of its founder can be achieved in this way as soon as possible.

Press release

Diocese of Trier, Germany – July 7, 2020

Beatification Process Kentenich: to evaluate newly found material

Bishop Ackermann announces appointment of a new commission of historians

Trier/Vallendar-Schoenstatt – Bishop Stephan Ackermann has announced the appointment of a new commission of historians in the beatification process of Father Joseph Kentenich. The reason is the fact that after a broader opening of the Vatican Archive (now until the end of the pontificate of Pope Pius XII in 1958), documents are now viewable which were previously not accessible for diocesan examination in the beatification process of the founder of the Schoenstatt Movement. Ackermann, the diocesan bishop responsible for the beatification process, made this statement on July 7 in Trier.

The currently valid norms provide for such a commission of historians for each process of beatification. The new commission will build on the results of a previous one which had concluded its work in 2007. The task of the new commission of historians, whose members have not yet been determined, will especially be to collect all now accessible documents of the Vatican Archive that in some way relate to this beatification process, and to assess their significance. The written documents may be those originating from Father Kentenich himself or relating to him and his work.

It will also be the task of the commission to reconcile the newly found material with what has already been gathered and evaluated from other archives by the previous commission. At the end of their work, the commission – including the results of the previous commission – will write a report in which a statement is also made about the personality and spirituality of Fr. Joseph Kentenich as depicted in the collected documents.

The beatification process of Father Joseph Kentenich was opened by Bishop Bernhard Stein on February 10, 1975 in the Diocese of Trier and until today has not yet been concluded on a diocesan level.

By

“Perhaps it is not always advisable to remain nobly silent!”

“Perhaps it is not always advisable to remain nobly silent!”

The publication of an article in a Catholic weekly newspaper in Germany brought up events from the 1950s that put both the founder of Schoenstatt and the community of the Schoenstatt Sisters of Mary in a bad light.

www.schoenstatt.de asked Sister M. Doria Schlickmann, author of several books about Father Josef Kentenich and a renowned expert on the history of Schoenstatt, to shed some light on the matter with some answers.
Sr Doria Schlickmann

Sister Doria, the aforementioned article speaks of the fact that Father Kentenich was referred to as “Father”, “the Founder with absolute power, who is often equated with God, so much so that in many expressions and prayers it is not clearly understood whether they are addressed to God the Father or to the Founder himself.”  Is this true? How do you explain this mixing up of God the Father and the Founder?

Ultimately, prayers can only be addressed to God. The experience of human transparencies of God’s love can make these prayers even more vivid and heartfelt. The word “father” for the founder is not unusual. Many communities also call their founder father. For many people, their image of God changed after they met Father Kentenich. With him it was also somehow surprising that men, young people, and married couples – without external stimulation and independently of one another – suddenly felt the need to call him father. This never was and is still never understood as competition with God.

How would you describe the relationship of the Sisters of Mary with Father Kentenich? How does he live in their community?

He is the founder, to whom the community owes its original character and – as one Pope once said – “its strong spirituality”. He has made unusual sacrifices for this community, not only in the willingness to lay down his life for it in Dachau, but also in the giving of his honor during and around the exile. The Visitator and the Holy Office wanted to completely separate the founder from the foundation. Perhaps this long-standing attempt even intensified the bond with the Founder. For us it is self-evident that he remained our spiritual father in eternity. He lives in our community through his rich spiritual heritage and we have a living experience of his intercessory power. For me he is a great example for the way I live my life: in his devotion to God and his great love for mankind. I am always impressed by his pedagogy and psychological empathy. It fascinates me how a person can inwardly take in, affirm and promote the most diverse kinds and types.

Father Kentenich was convinced that in order to develop their personality, people need strong attachments. What does attachment to a person do? Does it make him strong or does it render him weak? And how do the notes of the Visitator Sebastian Tromp SJ, who noted “that among the priests and the Sisters of Mary there are few secure personalities who have independent thinking and interior freedom”, fit in with this?

Basically, a healthy human bond is what makes strong, if it doesn’t degenerate into a blind dependence. Every child who knows that he or she is originally loved by his or her parents develops his or her personality, becomes strong, self-confident and gains a positive attitude towards life. However, this presupposes that parents, educators, those who bear the main responsibility in the bond are selfless, precisely because they are in some way an authority. A woman, it seems to me, is particularly sensitive to whether someone is selfless or wants something for himself, a women’s community even more so. A fellow Sister who worked for decades with the Founder once told me: “If we had felt the slightest trace in this direction (selfishness) with him (Father Kentenich), we would have withdrawn immediately.” What I was able to observe and research for decades was that many strong and inwardly free personalities in all the Schoenstatt communities have matured from the attachment to Father Kentenich, and it seems to me that they are still there today. For a number of these holy models in the history of Schoenstatt, the beatification processes are already underway in various countries.

Father Tromp may not have noticed that he frightened some Sisters very much by his authoritarian approach. The Sisters were not accustomed to such a style from the side of Father Kentenich. Moreover, the Visitator had already been adversely influenced against Father Kentenich in advance by a few Sisters of Mary, including our first Superior General. What Father Tromp did not see through or could not see through was that this Superior General saw the founder as a competition early on.

She meticulously collected unfavorable statements against him and sent them to the Visitator. You will find all this in more detail in my  biography.

Father Tromp’s judgement that all the other Sisters and Fathers who disagreed with him were weak, insecure, and not independent in their thinking is, in my opinion, quite a misjudgment, which I explain to myself by the fact that he had no experience whatsoever with pastoral care for women.  He was certainly an excellent professor of dogmatics, but here he was confronted with a completely different field. The history, expansion and development of the Schoenstatt Work throughout the world, which was carried independently by still young Sisters of Mary in foreign countries, proves the opposite.

Father Kentenich was sent into exile by the Church. What reasons did the Holy Office give to Father Kentenich and to the Schoenstatt Family?

I would remind you that it was not a practice of the HO, before Vatican II, to give reasons. In the most diverse decrees only the provisions are to be found. Likewise, the leaders in Schoenstatt did not know any reasons. Father General Turowski, during his term of office as General of the Pallottine Fathers, had asked several times about the reasons for Father Kentenich’s dismissal and exile, but to my knowledge, he had not received an answer.

Gradually, in the following years, rumors seeped through, more and more slanders became audible, fantasy lies that accused the founder of moral dishonesty. After about ten years of exile, Father Kentenich knew about all these accusations. When he therefore repeatedly asked for a legal trial against him, in order to be able to defend himself against the accusations and ever new suspicions, it was interpreted to him as disobedience. For this reason, in the early 1960s, he wrote a detailed statement regarding his person, but it was sent back to him unread. He should keep silent and carry his cross patiently. He was not given an opportunity to defend himself.

In another article, the author presents in a very derogatory way the religious practice of the child’s exam, which plays a role in your community. How is this rite to be understood and what is its meaning? Is it still practiced today?

Father Kentenich was always concerned with a vital, personal relationship with God and with the central core of our spirituality: being a child before God. The questions of the so-called child’s examination refer to our relationship with God as a child of God. That is why it uses the term “child,” and not “daughter”. Who do we belong to? God. What may God do with us? Anything! What are we before him? A little nothing, actually, and therefore his everything. This is a motif that runs through the entire history of Christian spirituality. God’s love for us is incomprehensibly great and personal, not simply a general reality. across the board. The word Father makes devotion to God personal, just as Jesus speaks to the Father in John’s Gospel: Just Father, … Beloved Father … and many other passages. It is a fundamentally personal conversation with the Father.

This devotion could find a concrete expression in the form of a question and answer dialogue with the founder. It had simply grown from life. But it is by no means a general custom or regularly recurring rite that every sister practiced or even had to practice.  This was and is a free decision of the respective sister.

If a sister wishes, she can express this to the highest superiors of the community. But God is always the last addressee. Otherwise the whole thing would be an unworthy game. As it was presented in the publication, it is completely distorted.

And what about the question: To whom does the breast belong?

This is also very distorted and incorrectly reproduced in the media. Everyone who reads this must think: That is absurd!

This question related to a single case. The sister had a pronounced anxiety disorder with regard to her physical appearance and therefore convulsively tried to hide her feminine forms as far as possible. It must be remembered that the upbringing of religious girls at this time often led to sexual inhibition and prudery. Fr. Kentenich clearly made her aware of her obsession and wanted to free her from this compulsion. He made it clear to her that she is accepted by God just as she is.

The newspaper article describes your community from the point of view of the Visitator. How did the sisters experience the Visitator? What kind of person was he? How did he affect the sisters? What did the respective sisters say about him and his manner? How many sisters had he actually personally experienced and spoken to?

As the archive documents of our chronicle show, he became more than angry whenever a sister expressed a different opinion than he wanted to hear. He reacted in a violent and unrestrained manner, arbitrarily punished sisters and priests who contradicted him, decided on the smallest matters of the sisters and wanted to force them to take vows. He arranged everything in a way that the community was not used to at all. Most of the sisters and priests were not intimidated by him, and they expressed their opinions to him independently and courageously, even if they had many disadvantages.

What can the Schoenstatt Movement do now? How do you interpret this current process? What should Schoenstatt learn from it?

First of all, I believe that the misinterpretations and false accusations against Father Kentenich that have now been published almost force us to bring to light the injustice that Father Kentenich suffered over decades. Yes, what should Schoenstatt learn from this? Perhaps that it is not always advisable to be nobly silent.

Interview: Heinrich Brehm, PressOffice Schönstatt

By

Statement on Allegations of Abuse against Father Joseph Kentenich

Statement on Allegations of Abuse against Father Joseph Kentenich

Secular Institute of the Schoenstatt Sisters of Mary

Statement on Allegations of Abuse against Father Joseph Kentenich
Download Statement

The General Presidium of the International Schoenstatt Work has already commented on the accusations against Father Joseph Kentenich, which were first published in an article by Alexandra von Teuffenbach in the weekly newspaper “Die Tagespost” on July 2, 2020, and in subsequent press releases worldwide. (Cf. General Presidium of the International Schoenstatt Work. Statement on abuse accusations against Fr. Joseph Kentenich (July 2, 2020).

As Schoenstatt Sisters of Mary, we have collaborated on this statement of this federative leading body of the international Schoenstatt Work. Since the accusations against Fr. Joseph Kentenich concern our community in particular, it is a matter of importance for us to strongly reaffirm the statements made in the joint statement of the General Presidium.

The content and style of Dr. von Teuffenbach’s statements hurt us and we emphatically reject them. What the author reflects from the point of view of the Visitator at that time, Fr. Tramp SJ, in no way corresponds to all that has had a lasting effect on our history, how we experience ourselves as a community and what we strive for.

Successive generations of our community have experienced the founder as an authentic and credible personality. From the very beginning of his work, it was his concern to help form interiorly firm and free personalities. Not least of all through his experiences in the Dachau concentration camp, Joseph Kentenich was extremely sensitive to the high values of dignity and personal freedom.

The fact that there were accusations against Father Kentenich from within our own community during the time of the visitations and that these concerned his position as founder and spiritual father is part of the general knowledge of our history. After all decrees against him had been lifted and he was able to resume his founding activity in the last three years of his life, there was no reason to assume that there were accusations against his moral integrity which had not yet been refuted.

The old accusations, which Dr. von Teuffenbach is bringing forward anew, now come into a social climate in which one reacts with extreme sensitivity to any kind of abuse, and rightly so. lt is entirely in our interest to come as closely as possible to the historical truth. lt goes without saying that we will endeavor to answer open questions to the best of our knowledge. lt seems important to us that the answers are not only given defensively on a point by point basis, but that the background and context are also understandable. Such an understanding also includes considering the overall spiritual and pastoral intention of Joseph Kentenich.

In the interest of a scientific analysis of the history of Schoenstatt and our Institute, it is important to us that all aspects of the events of that time are taken into consideration. We are ready to contribute to this goal.

Dr. Bernd Biberger

General Director

 

 

Berg Schönstatt, 4. Juli 2020

Sr. M. Aleja Slaughter

General Superior

By

Statement on abuse accusations against Father Josef Kentenich

Statement on abuse accusations against Father Josef Kentenich

This statement was prompted by accusations against the founder of the Schoenstatt Work, Father Joseph Kentenich, first in an article by Alexandra von Teuffenbach in the weekly newspaper "Die Tagespost" on July 2, 2020, and in subsequent press releases worldwide.

The information contained in this article, allegedly "not yet evaluated", is not new to us; it was fully included in the documentation about the Founder of Schoenstatt in connection with the temporary separation from his Work (1951-1965) and is being thoroughly studied by the ecclesiastical authorities in the context of the beatification process for Kentenich.

Alexandra von Teuffenbach, Church historian, who among other things edited the Council Diary of Fr. Sebastian Tromp SJ, reports in the “Tagespost” with allegedly sensational news: Based on her research in the Vatican archives, which have now been released for Pope Pius XII’s term of office, she wants to discover “why Father Joseph Kentenich had to leave the Schoenstatt community that he founded. In short: “sexual abuse”. In the article, one learns that the “true reasons for Kentenich’s exile” have not been mentioned until now, but that “the files now released can clarify the situation”.

The two visitations of the Institute of the Schoenstatt Sisters of Mary (1949 by the then Auxiliary Bishop Bernhard Stein of Trier and 1951-1953 by the Jesuit Fr. Sebastian Tromp SJ, who was commissioned by the “Holy Office”) are viewed entirely from the perspective of the visitators, especially the Apostolic Visitator Tromp. Thereby an image of the Sisters of Mary emerges, the palette of which ranges from extreme dependence, incapacity to judge and decide to childish dependence and slavish subservience to an all-dominating founder.

It is astonishing that the author – based on the reports of Fr. Tromp – makes his view of the community and its members completely her own. From this perspective, she interprets all the other documents, including the letters of some sisters to Pope Pius XII in defense of the exiled founder, negatively as “evidence of a pathological relationship with the founder”. These letters can also be understood as a sign of the courage of some of the members of the Institute at that time who, not at all weak, were women who stood up against measures of the Church that in their eyes had done wrong to the Founder and the entire Apostolic Movement of Schoenstatt. What the author does not mention is the loyalty of the Institute to the Church; in the more than 14 years of his exile, neither J. Kentenich nor the Sisters of Mary made the Church’s examination the subject of a critical press release.

It is also astonishing that Tromp is honored as an understander and liberator of women, as a defender of freedom of expression and conscience, because he listened to certain (few) critical voices (which was part of his task) and believed them – usually without open consultation with the founder himself. The members of the Institute, whom Tromp received for conversations during his visitation, did not experience him as a liberator, but suffered from his repressive questioning style, his outbursts of temperament (also known elsewhere) and attempts at intimidation, the threat and imposition of ecclesiastical punishments and the extremely negative judgement of the founder and the community.
That the sisters “were (forced) to confess to the founder” can be refuted by other testimonies.
In addition, J. Kentenich was at that time almost continuously on journeys abroad – not least in order to make the leaders of his communities independent. It remains a mystery how the compulsion to confess should take effect during such a prolonged absence.
The most massive accusation is that Fr. Kentenich abused his founding authority as “Father” towards the Sisters and demanded sexual services from them.

Here the statements become very broad. First of all there is talk about “a” Sister who “resisted” (against what?). Then a few paragraphs further down “six to eight others who also wrote” (what?). Finally, at some point in the text, there is the assertion that “the sexual abuse, which was initially denied, was later explained with the statement that Kentenich had only wanted to resolve the sisters’ sexual tensions through the ‘method of depth psychology’.
Such vague statements, coupled with the researched allegation of sexual abuse, do not testify to a critical examination of the files. Blanket assertions with evaluative adjectives merely play on the keyboard of the current abuse debate without knowing and communicating “the whole story”.
That there were accusations from the ranks of the Sisters of Mary is not new to us. Fr. Kentenich himself gave a detailed account of his actions to his superior after an accusation became known. In this context, however, there was no mention of sexual abuse, neither literally nor in content. Also in the Roman proceedings of the separation of Fr. Kentenich from his foundation, the charge of sexual abuse was not brought. The author of the article argues: “The Roman Congregation did not expose the sisters and did not use the report of the sister in the justifications” (for the exile). This interpretation seems to be laborious. It is probably meant to nevertheless somehow justify the thesis of sexual abuse. Moreover, the “Holy Office” was, as is well known at that time, not exactly reserved when accusations of abuse were made. Ms. von Teuffenbach does not explain why the “Office” spared Fr. Kentenich or its foundation.
On the contrary, it was repeatedly stated: The separation of Fr. Kentenich from his work is not a punitive measure, but an administrative order, i.e. a prudent measure taken through administrative channels.

We firmly reject the accusation that Joseph Kentenich was guilty of sexual abuse of members of the Institute of the Schoenstatt Sisters of Mary. His behavior toward other persons – especially women – was always marked by a pronounced reverence and esteem, as well as by the principle of physical intactness, which he also impressed upon his communities.

P. Kentenich responded in detail to the Visitator and his superiors regarding the accusation of abuse of power and explained his thinking, principles and behavior.
Joseph Kentenich was allowed to return to Schoenstatt in 1965 and 1966, respectively, after a 14-year exile. The decrees that separated him from his foundation were lifted, and the founder’s case was returned to the Congregation for Religious of that time. Thus he could once again assume his founding position in the Schoenstatt Work. De facto, the accusation of abuse of power was thereby also invalidated.

Before a beatification process is opened, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith must issue a so-called “nihil obstat” (declaration of no objection) based on the files in its archives. If there is a well-founded suspicion of moral misconduct on the part of the candidate for beatification, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not give the green light for the beginning of a process. In the case of the founder of Schoenstatt, Joseph Kentenich, the “nihil obstat” was granted.

All the documentation from the time of the visitation and the exile goes into the files of the beatification process. Thus, all critical voices and accusations are also subject to through study and serious consideration of all the facts in an appropriate historical and spiritual context. The final judgement in these proceedings is entrusted to the Church.

In the name of the International Presidency of the Schoenstatt Work,

P. Juan Pablo Catoggio
Schönstatt, 2. Juli 2020

Download Statement