Many years ago, as part of an unnamed institution, involving an anonymous colleague, for an unidentified student, I helped execute a deceit which helped that person achieve his educational goals in spite of seemingly arbitrary rules. No need to implicate anyone but myself, so the details will be vague.
In brief, the student was participating in a new and precedent setting program to gain entrance to a university. At issue was his past performance. He had failed the majority of his courses in a first attempt at university and was using our program as a second chance. The receiving institution claimed the poor experience made the student ineligible, a “rule” which I discovered the hard way when an earlier participant was denied in spite of my promises and efforts. In conferring with another colleague, we were determined to ensure this current student, a very bright young person, would not suffer the same fate; he deserved the opportunity. The colleague instructed the student not to divulge, in any form, his academic history; and I ordered the accompanying transcripts to print only the current grades, a little known procedure since eliminated but worked to my advantage at the time. The performance in the program, as per our signed agreement, was intended to be the sole measure for continuation. That student was accepted without question, excelled in all the courses, and graduated with honours. He found employment in his field immediately. I lost track of his career years ago.
I remembered this story during my most recent visit to the archives in Freshfield and Oosterbeek searching through records to trace the life of Fr. Kees de Cock. I was combing through pages of material from the different Mill Hill schools, hoping for information specific to his experiences, items such as reports or grades or evaluations. Cornelis de Cock appeared on some class lists, in one document about fee payments and on a preliminary list of students eligible for the priesthood. There was one succinct assessment from a July 1939 report of Class 4 where Cornelis de Cock was described as a “zealous worker, calm, good in sports, inclined to be easy going (not lazy), manners and speech ought to improve, rather fond of dialect”. Nothing more. I did uncover numerous documents regarding curriculum, school rules, instructions to parents and letters to the Superior General on current matters both routine and problematic.

“13 April 1946. My dear Father Mclaughlin, Again a letter; you cannot complain about my not keeping you busy with affairs of Missiehuis etc. 1. re our student … enclosed letter to the P.P. of Dokum and our petition to the Bishop of Breda tell you the case quite clearly that he is ‘illegitimus’ – – as is now fully established also by the new baptismal certificate… This student has been in our Colleges Hoorn, Haelen Tilburg, Haelen Roosendaal from 1934…. he took his temporal oath…and he is due for Perpetual oath on the 18th of May ’46 and for following ordinations. I cannot accept him without your knowledge etc. of the case. And because this is an extraordinary case I prefer to put it before the Council separate from the list of candidates I shall forward to you shortly. Re – his health – I am waiting final medical certificate. Re. his character and studies and other qualities – I don’t think there are any objections, – on the contrary.”
The student’s crime, as revealed in a follow-up letter, 25 April 1946, was to be born to parents wed according to civil law but not in the Catholic church. Moreover, the marriage document on file, acquired in 1938/39 when the student was enrolled in the fifth class already, appears to have been altered with someone changing “1931” to “1921”; and, the previous baptismal certificate on record declares him to be “filius legitimus”, contradicted with one more recently acquired. The student’s father converted to Catholicism after the student’s birth and did eventually marry in accordance with the faith. The priest of the local parish understood the “family circumstances” and served as his sponsor. Apparently the Rector was made aware. Every other priest involved (and there are at least nine others named) appears to have merely accepted the legitimacy of the student’s enrolment without a review of his file. The student himself never discussed the matter assuming Mill Hill had accepted him in spite of the situation. In the lead up to his Perpetual Oath, misgivings about a discussion with the spiritual director prompted further inquiry leading to what Father Mclaughlin would later describe as “a thoroughly nasty case”.
One of the challenges with archival letters is the researcher only reads one side of the conversation. I was not able to view every response of the Superior General, Father McLaughlin, except in what Father Padberg subsequently writes. In the letter dated 18th of May 1946, Father Padberg quotes the Superior General who is nonplussed with the entire matter. “It seems to us that DOLUS has entered in somewhere and if he has been admitted to the Society – for the probation on the occasion of his Temp. oath-DOLO, whether dolus on his part or on the part of the parochus or Superior admitting, then HIS WHOLE TEMP. MEMBERSHIP MAY HAVE BEEN INVALID, which would be bad business and, I suppose calling for another dispensation of some kind.” Father Padberg then proceeds to address each of the specific questions. A copy of the old baptismal certificate is provided; specific priests know nothing about the marriage certificate date change; a letter to the Pope via the Bishop, seeking special dispensation, has been sent; and canonical advisers “are fully convinced that no DOLUS has in any way entered into the case”. I wonder about the latter, because based on my own personal experience, the student would not have gone undetected for so long without key people turning a blind eye to an apparent breach in practice.
I did not uncover any more correspondence about the matter, the record incomplete, another challenge with archival material. The outcome remained a mystery until my arrival in Oosterbeek, attending a funeral and searching for familiar names of priests in the cemetery for Mill Hill missionaries. There it stood, closer to the rear, half engulfed in foliage, that student’s grave stone; born 26-5-1922, died 29-5-2011. He did become a priest somehow. Perhaps he received the dispensation from the Pope; perhaps the Superior General accepted him regardless of the new information; perhaps his actions as a seminarian convinced Mill Hill of his worthiness to become a priest. It was when I surveyed the wall of graduating classes later, inside Missiehuis, that I discovered he was a fellow student and priest of my Uncle. I sought out the photo from the Klasgenoten van 1947, the class ordained on July 6, with Father Kees de Cock, second from the left, middle row. And there he stood, the so-called filius illegitimus, positioned third from the right. An individual picture insert listed his postings including teaching assignments and a stint in Africa. Mill Hill had deemed him worthy in spite of the family circumstances, celebrating 63 years in the priesthood before his death at the age of 89.
That April 13th letter quoted above would suggest many of the teaching priests praised his character and devout nature which I suspect is the reason his “family circumstances” were actively overlooked. In him, they saw a budding fellow priest worthy of the opportunity to rise above a circumstance not of his making. In a class of only 19, I imagine fellow candidates were aware of his predicament. What did they think of their classmate, fellow seminarian, kin priest? They would have had a more intimate experience with him as an individual, and be either supportive or disgusted depending on their own approach to the teachings and Catholicism. What was Uncle Kees’ reaction? Equally a product of his time, church going, working class, did his feelings and understanding change over time?

I think about Fr. Herman Hofte, one of the nineteen from the 1947 class, who, in an interview about his experiences, characterized his approach to missionary work as focusing on the intention rather than the letter of the rules. According to Dr. Cees van Deursen, who knew my Uncle well, he would have operated in the same manner. I think about my cousin Margaret, who thought of Uncle Kees as intelligent, wise and open minded, suggesting a modern approach to faith. On that basis, he would have exhibited compassion for his classmate’s circumstances, supporting his desire to serve. Finally, I think about a comment from Stephen Dhizaala who escorted me on a tour of the Kamuli parish in 2017. In the front room of the rectory stood a safe to store the money for the parish. “This is where your Uncle and I cooked the books.” He did not elaborate; I did not ask. We simply shared an understanding laugh. No dolus here. Based on the response I received during my Uganda visit, whatever was concocted was for the benefit of the community and the parish, not for Fr. Kees de Cock or necessarily in strict accordance to the rules of the Mill Hill Mission Society. I believe he was a practical man, a kind and generous person, who found the priesthood as a vehicle for faith and for service.
In fact, I believe he is watching, nodding in agreement, quietly smiling at this story.












































