Cardinal okays gay man for parish council
Yes, it happened in Austria, but still, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn is a former student of Joseph Ratzinger, a.k.a. Pope Benedict XVI, and a confidant, they say. From the Rorate Caeli blog, via Dreher:
The Archdiocese of Vienna confirmed on Friday the election of a 26-year-old homosexual council member in the Stützenhofen municipality of the Weinviertel [region, north of Vienna]. The case had triggered a heated debate. Florian Stangl, who lives in a registered partnership, had been elected in mid-March, and, although chosen by a large majority of the population, had been rejected by the local priest because of his way of life.
Cardinal Schönborn met Stangl and his partner as part of the process before the Bishops Council made its decision to uphold the election — in this instance, at least — and reverse the decision by the parish pastor, Father Gerhard Swierzek, who had blocked the man’s election and also asked Stangl not to receive communion. Schönborn’s statement indicates that some changes to the election process may weed out such unusual circumstances in the future, but his words are interesting:
I thank the many candidates for the parish council elections. By their candidacy they showed their concern for the Church and the Faith. Thus they witness to the vitality of the Church. In their diversity they reflect the diversity of the life and faith journeys of today. Thus there are many parish councilors whose lifestyle does not in every way conform to the ideals of the Church. In view of the life-witness that each of them gives taken as a whole, and their commitment to the attempt to live a life of faith, the Church rejoices in their efforts. She does not thereby call the validity of her ideals into question.
In the small community of Stützenhofen, which I hold in great esteem, there is lively participation in Church life even in the younger generation. A sign of this is the high turnout the parish council elections. The formal errors which have come to light in that election do not call the results of the election itself (in which the youngest candidate, Florian Stangl, received the most votes) into question.
I was able to have a personal conversation with Herr Stangl, and was deeply impressed by his faithful disposition, his humility, and the way in which he lives his commitment to service. I can therefore understand why the inhabitants of Stützenhofen voted so decidedly for his participation in the parish council.
Austria is in many respects a laboratory for the future of Catholicism in the West — traditional faith, modern sensibilities. Many Catholics leaving, many Catholics staying and fighting for changes.
Good PR :O)
The question I have is: how would a divorced and remarried person have been treated?
David G – you may wish to tweak the headline of this post? The key point of the controversy is not that Stangl is gay – the church does not view a homosexual orientation as sinful, and I presume there are a lot of gay men and women serving on parish councils at parishes in the US – but that he was living with his partner in a “registered homosexual partnership”, and is pretty upfront that living chastely with his partner is “not realistic”.
I would think there are a number of bishops in the US who would not follow Schonborn’s lead.
I agree with Jim that many US bishops would not concur.
I also agree with david that the dynamic in Austria shows that there is a quite different approach than the distinctive one held by the USCCB.
Our Palm Sunday liturgy stressed how awful our secular world was, even with having the Masters and opening day during Holy Week.
The divide in the US wil keep growing and more “nones” appering under the present leadership; on the Continent, there wil be quite different dynamics, as in Austria and, I suspect Ireland and other places as well.
Here we’ll have Cardinal Dolan teling the young are longing for traditional teaching on sexuality and visiting Bishop Robinson saying the whole subject needs reappraisal.
Yay, Cardinal Schoenbrun! That’s more than a squeak, it’s more like an aria :-)
Good News.
In the vein of the Gospel message!
GAY MEN OKAY CARDINAL FOR ARCHDIOCESE
(Will we ever see that headline?)
(What about an international coming out day for all gay men in the clergy and hierarchy?)
What a lovely Catholic position. One can wish only that it were more catholic.
It is unclear, but it seems that this is not just the action of Cardinal Schönborn, but of the Austrian Bishops Conference:
Ecclesiastical Province of Salzburg
Archdiocese of Salzburg
• Diocese of Feldkirch
• Diocese of Graz-Seckau
• Diocese of Gurk
• Diocese of Innsbruck
Ecclesiastical Province of Vienna
Archdiocese of Vienna
• Diocese of Eisenstadt
• Diocese of Linz
• Diocese of Sankt Pölten
The question I have is: how would a divorced and remarried person have been treated?
Since the divorced and remarried are encouraged to take part in parish life, it seems to me quite reasonable to assume that an exemplary divorced and remarried person could serve on a parish council.
Here’s a question, however. Cardinal Schönborn met the gay man in question (and apparently his partner), and had good things to say about him. However, it is not at all clear that permission to serve on the parish council carries with it permission to received communion. What did Cardinal Schönborn and the gay couple discuss about reception of the sacraments? Apparently we don’t know.
If Cardinal Schönborn (and the Austrian Bishops Conference) have decreed that gay couples can serve on parish councils and receive communion, then this is a major story. If, however, it is just a matter of serving on a parish council, then it is interesting, but the ramifications are minor. I suspect it is the latter, and consequently I don’t believe Cardinal Schönborn and the Austrian Bishops Conference have welcomed gay people into full participation in the Catholic Church. If they have, I don’t believe their ruling will stand.
David –
Mr. Stangi is now an official member of an official Church organization. That means he has a voice in the Church, however tiny the voice might be. This is a huge, unprecedented change, even if it is destined to be only temporary. That the pastor of a huge, very important archdiocese has agreed to it is momentous.
Watch the Cardinal get slapped down. Pray for him, God bless him. Unless, of course, his old friend Joseph Ratzinger is starting to see the light and is allowing Schoenbrun to test the waters. Miracles do happen. What would happen in the curia if that is what is happening? Accusations that the Pope has suddenly turned incpmpetent? Poison? My imagination runs amok :-)
Ann, I don’t think it’s huge. True, it may be perceived that way by people who care a lot about these things and follow the cultural wars battle by battle, but in a few years this will have disappeared into the background noise. The Church has always evolved. This is just a tiny bit of evolution.
Ann – just to provide some perspective: there are a lot of gay people who are official members of official church organizations. A lot of people believe that the number of gay priests is disproportionate to the number of gay people in the population as a whole.
Anyway you slice it it is a major story. Schonborn took care of the person involved and the church when he wrote: “In view of the life-witness that each of them gives taken as a whole, and their commitment to the attempt to live a life of faith, the Church rejoices in their efforts. She does not thereby call the validity of her ideals into question.” This is a pastor who wants to bring people to God. His approach is powerful and appealing. It avoids polarization and invites dialogue. He sees a person sincerely seeking and committed. This is a bishop who knows who he is. He does not go about politicking but seeks to invite.
Cardinal Schonborn seems to have taken a number of ‘progressive’ positions, including reconciliation with the Orthodox Church, acceptance of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS, and at least raising the issue of celibacy. If there is going to be ‘evolution’ perhaps we should look to Vienna?
JIm –
I’m sure you’re right except that I would expect the proportion of gay priests to be be higher than average because the priesthood is a fine profession for a holy gay man who can remain celibate. (Couldl I add something that’s largely off-topic: I think gay men can often function better than straight priests for the simple reason that they are often more objective about what/who women are nd are not. They don’t have sexual urgings towards women affecting their judgments. That’s why women often mave good friends who are gay men — very often they understand us better than straight men do. But to return to the topic –)
The reason this case is huge is because Mr. Stangi is out and in a partnership. This the official Church has not tolerated before, though there are a few scholars who do not agree. They say that there were even Church blessings of such usions way back in history before there was even the word “homosexual”. Hmm. Funny there is so little evidence. In any event, that a major cardinal has agreed to this man having a voice could b the beginning of a major evolution.
This doesn’t surprise me. The cardinal is aware of something that’s happening everywhere in the church on a grass roots level (at least in the US): acceptance of gays, especially gay family members, friends, etc. To have too little forethought of this Catholic phenomenon is the part of a dupe or maybe of a naive believer.
By way of example: I think of recently deceased high school teacher, Jeanne Cahill, mother of six sons, widow, who, among other things, co-chaired St. Margaret’s Parish Council in Beverly, Mass. She raised six sons, two of whom are gay. She was active in her parish for 50 years and when two of her sons came out as gay men in the early 1990′s, she supported them, marching in the gay pride parade in Boston and demonstrating in support of legalization of same sex marriage. She wasn’t “fired” from her position on the parish council nor was she labeled “hostile” to Catholicism or “harmful.” She was warmly appreciated by her fellow parishioners, before and after her sons came out.
Finally, no one tried to write Jeanne Cahill out of her good reputation and strong Catholic faith for supporting her gay sons (and their friends) because there was nothing weak or non-Catholic in her to criticize. (The force of any criticism lies only in the faults or failing of the person criticized.) I don’t know if Cardinal Schonborn knows of any Austrian Catholics like Jeanne Cahill, but surely he must know the mistake of undervaluing people like her (and/or gay Catholics), who live the faith as strongly as any other practicing Catholic.
Considering the ecclesiastical swamp in which Cdl. Schonborn has been mired for some time, this is one relatively minor event. We are Church-Austria praises Cdl. Schonborn for his acceptance of the homosexual council member but continues its demand that “The following bishops must offer their resignation in accordance with canon law…” and names Bps. Kapellari, Fischer, and Kothgasser.
http://www.wir-sind-kirche.at/content/
The Austrian Priests’ Initiative “Call for Disobedience”, led by the former Vicar General of Vienna, strengthens and is establishing international ties, while an opposing group of Austrian clergy has formed, also criticizing the bishops.
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/germania-germany-alemania-austria-12872/
A major immediate issue is the proximity or existence of schism in Austria. One parish council is a small item.
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/austria-8195/
I don’t think this event is significant. There are no credible statistics about Catholics who serve on parish councils. However, it would be reasonable to assume that many members are divorced and remarried, and some may even be HIV positive and use a condom during sexual intercourse with their spouse. If this is plausible, then all we can say is that many parish council members are sinners. We are all sinners are we not. This does not mean the Church directly or indirectly sanctions sinful behavior. Also, many so-called “straight” Catholics support the rights of people with a same-sex attraction and legal union relationships.
The fact that a person with a same-sex attraction in relationship, can serve on a parish council does not mean that the Church is changing its teachings.
There’s greater significance in here than just one man being OK’d for a parish council position (there are any number of gay men and lesbians already serving on PPC’s all around the world, without any fuss or publicity). What makes it interesting, is that it taps into a series of reports of bishops giving some degree of support, or at least expressing tolerance, for same- sex civil partnerships or unions, and of bishops intervening in cases where reactionary bishops have hit the headlines for homophobic and discriminatory actions. (See the commentary at http://queeringthechurch.com/2012/04/02/schonborn-confirms-discrimination-is-not-a-catholic-value/ )
There are two strands to the Catechism teaching on homosexuality: the bit about genital acts is well known, but the counterpart, about “respect, compassion and sensitivity” for too long was pretty well ignored. That is now changing rapidly.
Two years ago, Cardinal Schonborn observed that it is time we moved beyond an obsession with genital acts, and instead focussed on the quality of our relationships. Many others are now agreeing with him – eg, Bishop Geoffrey Robinson and Cardinal Montini, to name just the latest two.
It may take a while, but it will eventually become the new orthodoxy.
Yes, Terrence,I venture to say it will likely become the new orthodoxy. And eventually conservatives will say, “As the Church has aways taught, gay marriage is a good thing.”
(What about an international coming out day for all gay men in the clergy and hierarchy?)
That would require lot of very large spaces. St. Peter’s square would have quite a contingent from the Vatican alone!
I do have to stifle a snort on this. At my former parish almost EVERYONE on the parish council was either a gay man or a lesbian, and practically all were openly partnered.
Not only that, 3 of the board members of Catholic Charities of said Archdiocese were from that parish and were openly lesbian/gay who made no bones about having partners.
And the current head of the CDF was Abp there at the time and he evidently didn’t bat an eye about any of this.
I don’t think this event is significant.
Michael J. Barberi,
Well, surely it is not insignificant that Cardinal Schönborn (and, it would appear, the bishops of Austria) overruled (or as the two linked sources put it, threw under a bus) a parish priest on the matter of whether an openly gay man could serve on a parish council. This must certainly be the first time a Cardinal met with an openly gay man in such a dispute and said, “I . . . was deeply impressed by his faithful disposition, his humility, and the way in which he lives his commitment to service.” I don’t think anyone (except some very upset conservatives) claim that “the Church directly or indirectly sanctions sinful behavior.” It would be a major step forward if the Church began to treat gay people similarly to divorced and remarried people. There is no reason the Church couldn’t do so, in my opinion, without changing any teachings at all.
” Hmm. Funny there is so little evidence. ”
See John Boswell’s “The Marriage of Likeness: Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe” (New York: Villard, 1994) which argues that the adelphopoiia (Greek for the “making of brothers”) liturgy was evidence that the attitude of the Christian church towards homosexuality has changed. Boswell made many detailed translations of these rites in Same-Sex Unions, and claimed that one mass gay wedding occurred only a couple of centuries ago in the Basilica of St John Lateran, the cathedral seat of the Pope as Bishop of Rome, over time, and that early Christians did on occasion accept same-sex relationships.
See also: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index-bos.asp
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosrev-paglia.asp
(Note the university at this these sites reside ….)
“This is just a tiny bit of evolution.” I think if you put an “R” in front of that word you might be closer to the truth. It didn’t happen just because the Cdl decided to be a magnanimous man one day. I’m not debasing him nor his motives one bit, but we all tend to move and change based on outside events, many of which are either retrospectively or currently acknowldeged as being revolutionary.
Women didn’t get to where they are in the world today because of any evolution that wasn’t forced by revolutionary actions.
“Austria is in many respects a laboratory for the future of Catholicism in the West”
Perhaps, but fwiw, an Austrian deacon with whom I used to correspond did not have such an optimistic outlook. His view was that Catholicism was to Austria as the economy is to Greece – a thing for which words like “collapse” and “in free-fall” are applicable; Austria (in his telling) is the model which nobody should wish to emulate; it is the cautionary tale held up to illustrate what should be avoided. According to him, the churches are empty, there are almost no priests, and the priests (and the relatively few deacons) are dispirited. (Apparently, if the articles linked above are to be believed, they have moved from demoralized to rebellious).
This was a few years ago; perhaps things have gotten better since then. And perhaps it is a view of only his diocese.
I can understand including LGBTQ on the parish council to be sure they are included and we all are ministering to their needs but gay marriage is a good thing.
I’m bewildered by the willfulness, particularly in light of “Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me; still, not my will but yours be done.”
In line with David Gibson’s depiction of the future of Catholicism in the West, here is another example of “traditional faith – modern sensibilities”:
http://queeringthechurch.com/2012/03/29/cardinal-martini-on-gay-partnerships/
This interview of Carlo Maria Cardinal Martini, S.J. retired archbishop of Milan and considered papabile at the conclave that ultimately chose B16, offers us a glimpse at what could have been.
Back in the laboratory, the Austrian Pastors’ Initiative which issued the “Call for Disobedience” last year put out a new statement “Protest – A Plea for a Credible Church” in Jan 2012, available in English at http://www.pfarrer-initiative.at/prot1_engl.pdf .
They had rejected at last one call from Schonborn for discussion on the grounds that he couldn’t resolve the matter himself and needed to bring in heads of religious orders. Reported polls of laity show strong majorities favoring the Pastors’ Initiative.
A separate Lay Initiative supports the Pastors’ Initiative. From Lay Initiative News at http://www.laieninitiative.at/aktuelles (Google crude translation) :
“Solidarity with the pastors’ initiative –
The “call to disobey” the pastor Initiative …. has led to a harsh confrontation between the leadership of Pastor initiative and Cardinal Schönborn. The Lay Initiative on 9 July 2011, a direct letter to the cardinal and an open letter in support of the priest to Cardinal Schönborn sent and made available to the press:
The sharp reprimand the minister for their initiative “calling for disobedience” totally ignores that all seven points of the call already common practice in many parishes. The disobedience is thus only that it is the pastor are tired to join the official church practiced concealment tactics. Finally courageous pastor say, in all candor, what they do for a long time: re-married and Christians of other denominations will be given communion, lay men and women to preach, long ago, have it but do so under the title “testimony” as if the other heading things change itself. There is also no secret that the priests who were chased out of office because of marriage, but are more active as a priest.”
Jim P. — Your deacon friend sounded over-optimistic.
I tried to say that the Austrian movement feels like the future on many parts of the continent; in the good old us, for Cradinalls dolan, George, etc. not so – and, I repeat, more divsion and nones and drift etc.
If the good Schonbrun is purblind, so are many at USCCB.
PS the number of ex Catholics in America is 10% and I think that’s a terrible indictment of our kind of leadership!
” His view was that Catholicism was to Austria as the economy is to Greece – a thing for which words like “collapse” and “in free-fall” are applicable; Austria (in his telling) is the model which nobody should wish to emulate; it is the cautionary tale held up to illustrate what should be avoided.”
No question that this is motivated in no small way by the collapse of the church in Austria It is apples and oranges when comparing the US to Europe. In many ways the RCC is collapsing here. And the reasons are the corruption of church officials. Not any tolerance of SSM or gays.
In evolutionary terms, this is a mutation — looks small but is immensely significant. Cardinal Martini and John Paul I had a similar policy (the latter backed adoption by gay couples). Decency and humanity are prevailing over the sniffy chastity-obsessives.
It is horrendous that US bishops seem to be on warmer terms with NOM and NARTH than with their own faithful and theologians.
Before deciding that an Austrian Cardinal is “leading the gay way” to the future of the Roman Catholic Church, I will wait and see what the German in Rome (Pope Benedict) has to say about this sort of thing.
This is probably not the first time Austrians have reveled in dressing up and prancing around a bit.
Ken–
Yes, fortunately the German in Rome is totally free of that temptation to dress up and prance.
The assumption by some that Austrian bishops, including Schonborn, are effective Church authorities with the power to have their words accepted and be followed is not supportable. (Cf. US bishops on contraception.) The “Call for Disobedience” and 2012 statement on “NO!” are only part of the upheaval. http://www.pfarrer-initiative.at/ Note 6 languages offered.
Four movements “Platform We are Church”, “Priests without an office,” “Father [Pastor] Initiative” and “Lay Initiative” have joined in rejecting the process and validity of bishop appointments by the Pope. Invoking Pope Leo I and the Decree of Gratian, “Non sunt habendi inter episcopos qui nee a Clericis eliguntur, nec a plebibus expectuntur”, their resolution declares that “bishop appointments without comprehensible and balanced survey of clergy and committed lay people are therefore to be regarded as invalid.”
(Yesterday’s links to the associated documents are dead today, strangely: http://www.bischofsernennung.at/ and
Aktion Bischofsernennungen button on the Pastor’s Initiative home page http://www.pfarrer-initiative.at/ )
Dead links are back at 1220pm
Sorry, Joseph O’Leary, I’m not good at acronyms. NOM and NARTH?
It seems to me that culturally the situations in Austria and Germany are somewhat different rom the rest of the West. Austria and Germany gave the world Hitler and Naziism, and no doubt many Autrians and Germans learned their lesson — speak out against evil before it is too late. So I would expect that even the upper Germanic clergy would be acutely aware that sometimes it is their duty to talk back to the authorities. In other words, the Austrian and German churches haven’t weakened, they are becoming stronger.
NOM = National Organization for Marriage. http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.7980587/k.BF50/Home.htm
Maggie Gallagher’s claque. Their current cause is to penalize Starbucks for supporting same-sex marriage: http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=omL2KeN0LzH&b=5075187&ct=11667657¬oc=1
NARTH = National Association on Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. http://narth.com/
A brainchild of the infamous Joseph Nicolosi. They are big on reparative therapy and co-hatibitues of “Courage.” To see a countering opinion on NARTH, see: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/repeat-after-me-the-reparative-therapy-echo-chamber
Since Schonborn was called on the carpet on June 28, 2010 for a similar affirmation of LBGT dignity, it will take only one opportunist to call Benedict’s hand, and unfortunately, Schonbron will get the Canon 402.2 handshake he’ll be “hanging his cleats” next to Bernie Law in the Vatican Club House.
If anyone is still checking out this thread, I recommend the piece by Elizabeth Scalia (The Anchoress) over on First Things As I said in another thread, she has stirred up a hornet’s nest by backing up Cardinal Schönborn. Her piece as well as the comments that follow are well worth reading—the comments (many of them) because they show how hostile and closed minded people can be on the topic.
For Tony Green:
Whatever the immediate outcome, it’s doubtful that this will strengthen the Cardinal’s rep as a leading “papabile”, especially among the voters in the College of Cardinals. Short of a miracle.
Cardinal Martini, former archbishop of Milan and rumored strong papabile in the last papal election, has come out in a recent book and approved gay civil unions. Hmmmm. That both he and Cdl. Schoenborn, who was also a papabile last time round, are sympathetic to gay causes, suggests to me strongly that there might be more progressive thinking in the upper echelons of the college of cardinals than is generally thought. At least that might be the case among the European cardinals. I hope so..
Cdl. Schonborn was on Sunday’s ORF “Press Hour” (4/1/12). The newspaper headline at derStandard.at was (trans.) that he said the Catholic Church in Austria is in a difficult situation but not hopeless. Elsewhere, others disagree.
A report translated accurately in sense and correctly nuanced would be of high interest. He touched on a long list of subjects including the abuse crisis, violence in schools, confirming the homosexual parish council member, the rules not changing on marriage, divorced and remarried people, and homosexuality, the Pastor’s Initiative, corruption in Austria, and asylum for immigrants. No apparent mention of recurring Vatican interactions.
http://derstandard.at/1333184950412/Lage-der-Kirche-fuer-Schoenborn-nicht-hoffnungslos
David N, thanks for referencing that Elizabeth Scalia article – it’s probably the best thing of hers I’ve ever read.
Jack –
Another bishop, Bishop Robinson, the retired Australian who is lecturing in the U. S., said in Chicago very recently that the Church needs to re-think all of its teaching on sexuality, and he called for reforms in the secretive official Church.
Years ago I met an author who happened to be in Prague when Communism fell there. It fell so quickly that people were astonished. The writer said that what had happened was that the Communists leaders themselves had long ago stopped believing in Communism, but they were afraid to say so because in the past there had been such awful consequences for dissidents. But once a few people spoke out the others quickly came to realize that they had all changed a long time before, but were too afraid to speak out.
I keep hoping that something like that is at least beginning to happen in the Church. At any rate, two cardinals and one bishop talking like dissidents in one week might get some other bishops thinkng even if they’re not ready to speak out.
David Nickol:
Sorry for the confusion. When I said “not significant”, I meant it in the strict meaning or epistemology or the word. I did not want to imply “insignificant”, nor “not important”.
I am supportive of gay and lesbian salvation and tolerance, including unions that are respectful of fidelity and the requirements of a holistic complementarity.
While one can agree that this event is another positive step in the right direction, we must never lose perspective that a bishop is not a bishop by himself, but only in the Catholic communion with those who were bishops before him, are bishops with him, and will be bishops after him. Therefore, while I agree this event is positive, it is not significant. There is a huge difference between pastoral practices (compassion, respect for dignity and equality, spiritual guidance, etc) and doctrine. When such practices create a controversy, scandal, and deemed significant, the CDF steps in. Sometimes this means removing the bishop from his responsibilities, a reprimand, etc.
I agree we should have more positive events such as this one, because they move the conversation forward to a better understanding of the moral truth.
Good news from Rome today! La Stampa says that Pope Benedict’s homily to the “rebel” Austrian priests was well received by them. It wasn’t harsh, and it looks like he thinks they need to be listened to. Cdl. Schoeborn sounded rather hopeful.
Who knows. The long-awaired V II reform might be beginning.
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/austria-14134/
Ann;
Thank you for this information. I admit that I quickly skipped over the many blogs of good commentary, especially the “Call for Disobedience” and what appears to be a priestly Austrian revolt. I will read, with enthusiasm, the other internet URL’s on this subject.
In this regard, this movement IS A SIGNIFICANT EVENT! Let’s pray that it grows.
Michael B. –
Here is another tidbit which might indicate that the official Church is opening up. Bishop Zubik of Pittsburgh met with six of his priests to discuss the contraception problem. The meeting was said to be cordial :-) Bishop Zubik even said he’d like to meet with lay people about it so both sides could listen to each other.
Yay, Bishop Zubik!! Yay, Pittsburgh priests!!
http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/pittsburgh-priests-bishop-listen-laity-contraception
Ann:
The fact the Bishop Zubik thinks it is a good idea to speak to lay women about contraception, is indicative of a lack of intellectual honesty or ignorance. I don’t know which is worse.
There have been numerous surveys over the past several decades about the opinions and practices of Catholics regarding birth control. There has also been a heated theological debate going on since 1968 that has divided the church and has been characterized by “a crisis of truth”. The lay and theological issues regarding contraception is no secret!
I am encouraged that 4 priests met with Bishop Zubik on this subject, but frankly, does the good bishop expect to report what is “not news” to his colleagues at the USCCB? To what end?
Ann O. —
A telling quote from the bishop in the article to which you linked: “‘I think that as many people as possible need to hear from me’ on the issue, he said.”
It’s interesting but hardly promising that 4 presumably celibate men went to talk to the presumably celibate bishop about concerns revolving around birth control. I agree with all Michael B. said.
Michael –
I don’t know Bishop Zubik, but from what he is quoted as saying, I have no reason to doubt his sincerity. He is even quoted as saying that if a woman thinks she needs to use contraceptives, that she should speak to her confessor. That doesn’t sound like a party-liner to me at all, at all.
Jack -
You seem to think that celibates have nothing to offer in this discussion. As a celibate spinster, I am just as capable as any married person to speak to the relevant philosophical and logical problems inherent in the Church’s arguments against contraception. Not to mention that the bishops an priests can (or should be able to) speak to the theological elements in the question (if there are any).
So, yes, they do have — or should have — something to say about it.
Ann O —
Assuming “this discussion” refers to the Zubik story immediately above and your comment, first, what the Church has to say on the practice of contraception was fairly thoroughly dismissed by many — priests and laity — starting about four decades ago, including publicly. The most enlightening advance since then has been the revelation of the history of how Humanae Vitae came to be.
You are probably more capable than almost anyone I’ve known to speak to the relevant philosophical and logical problems inherent in the Church’s arguments. As well as those problems may be understood and explained, the major conclusions of the arguments remain, and those are what dictate the Church’s positions for all married people. A presumably celibate priest has no possibility of absorbing the non-scholastic education that enters into informed, thoughtful, prayerful joint consideration of contraception, education beyond and sometimes more important than relevant philosophy, logic, and theology. Remember Patty Crowley.
Jack –
I certainly don’t discount the opinions of any group. And the *experience* of the married folks is where it all begins and should end. (I’m using “experience” very broadly here.) That’s why I’m encouraged by Bishop Zubik’s volunteering that he actually wants to talk with lay people. I just have never before heard of a bishop who was open to *listening* (his word) to what the people have to say.
Not that one bishop in even a series of dialogues will change things. But he is giving good example, and others might follow.
Actually, I think that the problem with the Church’s old scholastic teaching on contraception is only part of the problem with HV. The problem is equally that of Carol Woityla, whose new-fangled theory of marriage which was actually incorporated into HV. And it seems to me that the witnessing of the married folks would be most relevant for discussing Woityla’s view.
Back in Austria, the gay man on parish council continues to strike me as one relatively minor item in an array of continuing serious conflicts. Headlines on 1 or 2 items (e.g., women’s ordination or parish council) are misrepresenting the scope of the movement.
Thursday 4/5, the Pope specifically pointed to the Austrian Pastors Initiative in his Chrism Mass homily rejecting disobedience.
Friday, Cdl. Schonborn called for the Pastors Initiative to withdraw soon their “Appeal to Disobedience”, posted since June 2011, saying it cannot remain. The leader of the reform group, former Vicar General of Vienna, rejected the Cardinal’s announcement on the grounds that it would violate their consciences; “the disobedience of various existing strict religious rules and laws has already been part of our life and working as a pastor …” About 15 points of issue are on the formal Appeal and Protest statements from the pastors.
http://derstandard.at/1333528620896/Ungehorsam-Schoenborn-fordert-Ruecknahme-des-Aufrufs
For links to Appeal (2011) and Protest (2012) in English – Select [English] at http://www.pfarrer-initiative.at/
Jack –
You see these incidents as problems. I see them as the beginnings of solutions.
I think we need a new thread on The Pooe’s homily at the Chrism Mass and the aftermath,
(Question: don’t priests take or renew a loylaty oath on Holy thursdy?)
It seems Benedict opened a crack as Fr.Christiansen points out in his new thread at America’s “In All Things.”
But, the silencing of the Irish redemptorist (to the dismay publicly of his superior) by the Vatrican/curial forces show that lots of command/control is still much in eveidence!
What do you think of Cradinal dolan inviting Cardinal Rigali to give the Holy Thursday homily?
It’s the communio episcopi”that really matters?
Wonder what the Irish though tof the good cardinal’s action as he was part of their “visitation?”
I think any real change wil come from the bottom up -some priests and lots of laity and real reistance and implacability fro mthe policy makers will be the usual.
Ann:
As you know, I am most respectful of your thoughts and comments. I agree that Bishop Rubik was sincere and his statement may be one of many steps needed for reform to take root, inclusive of the Pfarrer movement.
As Bob Nunz rightly said, “any real change will come from the bottom-up”. Let’s pray and hope that these one-off, but significant movements are the fire of the Holy Spirit and that these fires lead the hierarchy, in counsel with the pope, to these much needed reforms. I am full of hope but not naive or idealogical to believe that these movements may withdraw into history without the contributions they seek to achieve. However, according to the Austrian priests, they cannot or will not go against their informed consciences. Praise be to God!
Bob Nunz’s useful suggestion for a thread suggests an area for more attention — clergy organizations trying to connect with bishops and aiming for changes. Some may become important among the “grass roots”, especially because they are talking with each other. The Austrian Pastors Initiative is one, mentioned above.
A key aspect of the silenced Redemptorist Bob mentions, Fr. Tony Flaherty, is that he is a founder and leader of the Irish Association of Catholic Priests (ACP). The ACP, about 800 priests now, has similarities and differences compared to the Pastors Initiative, with which it commnuicates. Its objectives show the breadth of its purpose. http://www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/objectives/
A comment to the ACP website from a leader of the fairly quiet Assoc. of US Catholic Priests (AUSCP) gave a quick summary about the latter: http://www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2012/03/new-members-of-the-association/
“We of the AUSCP continue to follow in the ACP’s footsteps, with two regional meetings in the past several weeks. … [See http://www.uscatholicpriests.org/events/ for 2 meeting reports.] “We now have around 450 members (just over 1% of all USA priests) and are busy planning our Inaugural Assembly at St Leo’s University, near Tampa, Florida June 11 to the 14th. We do hope the ACP will send an observer. We’ll provide hospitality as you all did for me during your first annual assembly.
“Two of our members …. will be attending the Australians up-coming assembly as observers and several of our members would accept an invitation to be with you at your Second Annual General Meeting. Finally, we have our new website up, …. I favor a public blog such as yours but there’s much hesitation for U.S. priests to be seen and heard in public.
“Fr. Bernard Survil, Diocese of Greensburg” March 12, 2012
Bob and Michael –
I think we’re all pretty much agreed — a bit hopeful but very cautious.
I think we could use another thread as well – today’s NYT Sunday Review front page piece by Rodd Douthat and the problem of God or rather religion and poltical divsions that have killed the center.
While I think Douthat is right that the center has collapsed and that poltics is much entwined with religion and vice versa, our continued divide -whic he notes feed off each other in both worlds -seems to cast a cloud in my opinion on this quintesential day of hope.
What’s mising in Douthat, if I read himright. is his solution to go back to a time that’s gone – rather than the inability to engage the modern world in its complexities and chnages in understanding.
So dialogue question raised here will be the traditional hard nut because in both politics and religion, the questions of modernity loom large(in politics. see also today’s Sunday dialogue about changing our driving habits and more…)
Of course there are glimmers of hope -again, the NYT has a nice piece on st. Boniface Oratory in Brooklyn and “intentional” parishes (right, David G.?) but the piece concludes with another view from a chancery man.
So, Ann, I think the issue of change coming is to borrow a word, complex.
If, as the latest lecture at our nearby Sante Fe Instuitute wil suggest, that our intuituoins play heavily into our moral/philopsphical thinking, but vary much among persons, where will the unitive voices come from that help (again another favorite word of mine) an imploding -slowly- church come from if the there ‘s no room between top or bttom for collaboration?
One last and I hope not too silly thought.
I Liked the quote of Kentucky coach John Callipari featired in Sports iluustrated’s report on the NCAA that leadership is rooted in colaboration.
Maybe BXVI should have noted that though Thursday when he spoke about obedince as necessary.
Bob N. –
Yes, collaboration seems to be a necessity. In a society where the average person has been taught to be egalitarian about everything, including thinking everybody’s opinion is worth the same, then obedience becomes highly problematic.
This reminds me of a story told by my student who was an early follower of Martin Luther King. He, the student, said concerning that awful demonstration at Birmingham in which several small girls were killed, that King preferred the young demonstrators to older ones because “the college kids think they know everything and don’t want to take orders, so they’re harder to control.”
I suppose it was easier being a bishop when the laity didn’t think it could competently criticize the theology as the bishps. Either they have to become better theologians or we have to be persuaded somehow that their theology is the right one. Or the bishops have to convince us of something even more unlikely — that the laity are obliged not-to-think-critically about what the bishops teach.
Ann —
Collaboration is a possibly desirable option, not a necessity, as the last big Church reform to erupt in Middle Europe showed. The old Cath. Encyclopedia at newadvent.org described historical schisms as usually having been about teachings or about governance. Current divisive turbulence seems to me to involve both in various mixtures, more obviously across Europe than in the US at present. That makes potentially unifying collaboration probably feel very difficult for some bishops since they start out at the meeting holding the governing authority, the scope of which is to be adjusted, downwards.
On complexity, one aspect that makes it extreme was pointed out by Bp. Geoffrey Robinson and also by Richard Sipe and s few others. The diverse major issues in the sex-and-gender category are linked by one common underlying network of concepts. Therefore, trying to resolve one issue will create problems elsewhere. (Cdl. Schonborn might have just initiated one with Herr Stangl.) As Sipe puts it, and I think Robinson is saying the same: “Only a sexual Copernican shift that will reconsider basic assumptions about sexual teaching and discipline that affect all Catholics will be sufficient to meet the basic crisis …”. http://www.richardsipe.com/Lectures/2010-05-20-boston.html
How the Church authorities would allow the convening of the courage and wisdom required for productive collaboration on that challenge is hard to imagine. Maybe changes will just continue to occur as is going on already, and the Magisterium will catch up later with groups to which they are still connected.
(Typo at 4/7 9:38pm: Redemptorist Fr Tony _Flannery_ Sorry)
I didn’t know where to post this -here or at the Good Friday Stations thread – but a memebr of the junior Board of Ny Catholic Charities has resigned because of Cardinal Dolan’s refusal to help a shelter for GLT youth on the streets (as reported in the Boston Globe).
The Cardinal says he’s about the truth and goes on CBS on Easter to defend the Chjrch’s rights.
One sore spot in the divide is clearly how shepherds deal with the marginalized and I fear the cardinal Abp. comes off badly (as he does with his buddy Bill Donahue on dealing with victims of abuse.)
I also didn’ t mention Ms. Dowd’s piece in the Sunday Review yesterday as some seem to be turned off by mentioning her name.
But – the issue of women and their status is still a central piece of how the Church engages (and right now it doesn’t sem to be handling that well either) the issue.
Thanks to Jack for noting Fr. Flannery and the Association of Irish Priests have called his silencing unjust among other things.
The CDF model of magisterium strikes me as highly problematic in engaging the many problems the Church now faces and, if continued, more divide and loss will surely follow.