 |
| Which course will Cardinal Schonborn choose? The one that dead ends at the Vatican or the one that leads to an open Catholic future? |
In case readers haven't noticed, I find the Austrian situation most interesting, and will continue to try and keep current with the latest information. The following is edited from an article posted today on the National Catholic Reporter. It contains some new information which can't exactly excite Cardinal Schonborn.
.....Schönborn was reportedly to meet the Priests’ Initiative leaders again Sept. 10.
But the leaders of Austria’s Conference of Religious Superiors of Men want that meeting to be public and encompass a larger group. Because there is talk of schism, they say, the controversy can no longer be solved by Schönborn alone. (The standard secret or closed meeting would hardly be a good idea.)
There are about 40 male religious superiors in Austria, and their opinions carry weight because religious priests account for about half of all parish priests in Austria.
The head of the male superiors, Abbot Maximilian Fürnsinn of the Augustinian Monastery of Herzogenburg, says a church summit is called for because certain of the reforms the Priests’ Initiative is pressing for -- such as “allowing older married men to say Mass” -- are “at least worthy of discussion.” (One would certainly think so.)
Abbot Martin Felhofer of the Premonstratensian Abbey of Schlägl said, “Everyone -- bishops, abbots, religious and representatives of the Austrian Priests’ Initiative -- must sit down and discuss these problems together.” (He forgot to mention the laity.)
The director of Caritas Austria, Franz Küberl, told Austrian state radio Sept. 3 that the church reform debate was not confined to Austria. The same issues are being discussed in many countries. He was in favor of ordaining women deacons, he said, and as far as obedience was concerned, the main thing “surely” was to obey the Gospel. (One would certainly think so.)
The head of Austrian Catholic Action, Luitgard Derschmidt, said that she fully understands that the members of the Priests’ Initiative “have had enough” and that Catholic Action shares many of their concerns. Austrian Catholic Action is the umbrella group for seven Catholic lay organizations that represent approximately 500,000 lay Catholics.
They were “not so much calling for disobedience but rather for a higher obedience to conscience and to God,” Derschmidt said. Mandatory priestly celibacy was a rule that could be relaxed, she said, adding that that many Catholic theologians see no reason why women could not be ordained. (That's a clever way of framing this initiative, and it puts a number of things in perspective, such as Rome is not God.)
The most recent polls taken among Austrian Catholics show that 90 percent want this controversy solved without there being winners or losers.
The polls also show that only 14 percent of Austrian priests think they are duty bound to obey church leaders and only 14 percent of Austrians accept the argument that women can never be ordained as Jesus only ordained men. (These are serious numbers--especially the priests attitude towards obedience to Church leaders.)
But 70 percent believe the church and its leaders are “an important moral authority.”
Ninety-six percent say that the exodus from the Austrian Catholic church would be “huge” if members of the Priests’ Initiative are suspended......
........The initiative decided to make their “Call to Disobedience” public in June, Schüller said, because parish priests have been expected to live schizophrenic lives for so long that it was wearing them out.
The hierarchy tolerates widespread disobedience at the grass roots, he said. For instance, it is a well-known fact that Catholics, even many of the young who go to World Youth Days, widely use contraception although it is forbidden by church law, he said. As a result, birth rates in Catholic countries like Poland and Austria are among the lowest in Europe if not in the world, but the bishops refuse to discuss such problems openly, thus leaving parish priests to teach one thing but practice or tolerate another, Schüller said. (This isn't really schizoid, it's plain ole hypocrisy and I can see where it is wearing out good priests.)
Since June, Schüller’s group has been in touch with similar groups in Ireland and the United States, he said. From the beginning, the group has had close contact with like-minded priests in Germany, where there is a similar initiative that is, however, more hesitant to go public than the Austrian initiative, according to Schüller.
(If the German priests go public, this initiative will snow ball. I also think it will find some of it's most ardent supporters in the South, like in Brazil.)
He has received thousands of e-mails from all over the world, he said. Most have been supportive, but there has also been some harsh criticism, with people accusing the priests of promoting a schism and telling them to leave the Catholic church.
Schönborn’s call for “reverence and obedience” triggered a heated, nationwide debate on obedience and disobedience in the church, which has a sad history in Austria.
It was pointed out, for example, that in April 1938 the Austrian bishops called on Catholics to vote for Nazi Germany’s annexation of Austria. Most obeyed the bishops, but a few, like Franz Jägerstätter, refused. Jägerstätter did not leave the church. He was, moreover, many years later beatified for his disobedience.
(Jagestatter understood that in the context of Nazism blind obedience was just another name for fear driven moral cowardice.)
***************************************************
Maybe the Spirit of Vatican II isn't quite dead yet. Seems to me there was something in the documents of Vatican II that talked about the primacy of acting from one's well formed conscience--and that didn't mean acting from a conscience that was well formed to make one decision. That one decision being to blindly follow the Vatican no matter the level of idiocy, willful ignorance or plain old hypocrisy.
I have a couple of reasons for my interest in this story. The first is I like Cardinal Schonborn. There is something human about him. He's human enough to let his frustration show, like he did with Cardinal Sodano. Curious enough to seek out his own information as he has with Medjugorge. Open enough to broach the topic of gay unions in the context of actual love rather than lust. He has shown himself to be approachable and that more than anything has probably given his priests a sort of permission to act publicly on this initiative. He is now faced with a situation in which he will need to demonstrate all these qualities, but eventually he will have to decide which Schonborn will take ascendancy, the one who went meekly to the Vatican woodshed or the one who had the courage to confront Sodano; the one who was the prime author of the Catholic catechism or the one who speculated on gay marriage. The one who is considered a serious papal contender or the one who takes Medjugorge seriously.
Reason number two is I have thought for some time, and even written about it, that once a significant group of priests gave voice to Catholic frustration their voice would be echoed everywhere Catholic and that most definitely includes the South. Catholics sometimes forget that the JPII/Benedict papacy made the elimination of Liberation theology a major issue, but that wasn't all they did down South. JPII also eliminated the Base Community movement in Brazil precisely because it was purportedly confusing 'the roles of laity and clergy.' Should German priests go public we shall likely see many more falling dominoes.
But there are other signs that the Vatican is losing it's grip on it's power and prestige along with it's grip on all things Catholic. In this time of economic crunch, European governments are beginning to think the previously unthinkable. Do cash strapped countries really need to have diplomatic relationships with an increasingly irrelevant Vatican? Closing embassies saves money. An increasingly belligerent and right wing Vatican can be a political liability--especially a Vatican that actively interferes in the selection of an ambassador in order to fit it's own political agenda. The US ambassador to the Vatican is an example of this process. President Obama had a whole list of heavy weight Catholic politicians and diplomats to choose from except none of these democrats passed the Vatican orthodoxy test. So our Ambassador was chosen not for his diplomatic resume, but for his position on abortion. This is not a knock on Ambassador Diaz. It's a statement of fact.
Cardinal Schonborn is a smart man. He is aware the Vatican is losing a great deal of prestige along with huge numbers of baptized Catholics all over the globe, not just the West. He is aware of the fact that spirituality is not a nebulous concept and that the spiritual search is replacing religious certainty for millions and millions of people. He's being given an opportunity to define himself once and for all. Will he be just another Roman Catholic Vatican yes man and lose a huge percentage of his flock, or will he be a truly prophetic leader and begin charting a new course for the Catholic church? We don't have long to wait to find out.
Hermeneutics used as a weapon
Pope Leo XIII directed two negative encyclical letters against the American Church. One of these was "Loginqua Oceani" (1895) which rejected the American separation of Church and State and made it clear that this is a "very erroneous" arrangement even for the United States.
The encyclical noted with horror that "State and Church...in America" are "dissevered and divorced." Leo stated that Rome will at best tolerate this experiment in America but only until Catholic are a majority. At that point, American Catholics must press for a union of Church and State and for the marginalizatiion of all Protestant Churches. And typically, this encyclical called for a "submissive spirit" from all the clergy and for "obedience from the laity." (If the goal is global hegemony, one can not have a secular government in the way. The idea one could instead help create a fascist Spain or Nazi Germany didn't seem to enter Rome's mind.)
The second letter, "Testem Benevolentiae" (1899) took direct aim at American Catholic culture. It found American Catholics:
1) too eager to accommodate doctrine to modernity (Rome against change).
2) too willing to think and say whatever they wish and indeed to express these thoughts too readily in print (Rome against free speech)
3) too individualistic and too willing to rely on the direct influence of the spirit in their spiritual lives rather than following the "well-known path laid out by the Church (Rome against freedom of conscience)
4) too enamored of active and practical virtues, to the neglect of passive
and contemplative values (Rome against Americans' pragmatism)
5) too dismissive of vows and formal religious life (Rome against American Religious' initiative in adapting their apostolates (ministeries) to the needs of the American people.)
The encyclical condemned these characteristics as "Americanism," a general tendency to suppose that the "Church in America" can be "different from" the rest of the world (actually Leo XIII meant 'Europe').
The papacy strongly disliked, as seen in "Testem Benevolentiae" areas that went to the heart of American culture. This was again, ability to change, free speech, freedom of conscience, pragmatism and American initiative.
BTW, Cardinal James Gibbons objected to the encyclical in a sharp letter to the Pope on March 17, 1899.
Today, America is seeing immigrants streaming into the country from Latin America. Back at the end of the 19th Century and the early 20th Century, America advanced even further because of the massive influx of immigrants. These immigrants were less adept with the American system. They did not, for the most part, have English as a native language; as Catholics, they cared less about an active voice in governing their Church than in surviving. A ready group of bishops (appointed and supported, for this reason by Rome) moved in a sternly conservative direction.
This phase in the history of American Catholicism (just like now) stressed submissiveness. It is true, that many bishops back at that time organized assistance for Catholic immigrants that was often healing and life-saving. But these bishops, in turn, and many priests, insisted on absolute power and total obedience.
They were excellent organizers but also men of narrow theological vision. They tended to be belligerent, more impressive in conflict than in their capacity to reconcile. (This fits the codepency/addiction abuse dynamic which is about setting up continual crisis/conflict in order to feel fully engaged.)
John Hughes, Archbishop of New York, was typical. He dismantled the trustee system in St. Patrick's Cathedral, boasting, "I made war on the whole system." He added that "Catholics did their duty when they obeyed their bishop." Even more ominously, he warned: "I will suffer (permit) no man in my diocese that I cannot control." (This is the control aspect of codepency as expressed in it's narcissistic form.)
Rome kept up the pressure. In "Vehementer Nos," Pius X wrote:"...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led and, like a docile flock, to follow their pastors..."
This time period was strongly hierarchical. It instilled a sacramental reverence for Church authority, a sense that Christ was present in every official decision. The laity were to receive authority the way they would receive sacraments. Obedience became a central, defining virtue, a mark of holiness, and indispensable condition for approval and promotion. Dissent was treasonous---anti-Christ, diagnosed as a pathology. Initiative withered. This Church gave safety to its compliant members but it filled them with a sense of paranoia and suspicion of everything that was not Catholic.
This was NOT how the Catholic Church in America operated in the years from 1634-1850---it was much, much more democratic.
Now the Vatican seemingly has dug up and re-read the script that it used from Leo XIII's time up until after World War II. Today, bishops who repeat mindlessly that the Church is not a democracy---are anti-American and anti-Christian. All the other Christian Churches are collegial. Loyalty to Christ, after all, is not essentially connected with monarchy and ecclesial fedualism. A Church that that is proud that it is not a democracy and condemns a democratic spirit for its method of governance---is a working model for a totalitarianism system. This totalitarian Church is not seeking disciples---but members who are serfs (in the feudal sense of the word.
****************************************
I can certainly see where our fearless leadership is looking at the current demographics in American Catholicism and seeing the current influx of immigrant Catholics into American parishes as a rerun of America from the turn of the twentieth century. They see immigrants who are Catholic, poor, uneducated, and enculturated in the Spanish version of the Catholic Church. They are most likely seen as religiously dependent and submissive, while very much in need of a friendly safe face--a very fertile ground for authority driven bishops to plow. So, I am not terribly surprised that the USCCB is front and center in the immigration wars, showing a seemingly incongruent passion for social justice in this one area while otherwise acting as reactionary as any other right wing culture warrior. Eventually, bishops such as Gomez in Los Angeles will begin to erode the resistance of the wealthy to immigration reform by hinting at the positives Latin immigrants bring to the US. Eventually, the wealthy will really get what he is hinting at: "Oh yea, we made a fortune on the backs of Catholic Irish and European immigrants back in the day, we could do it again. All we have to do is trust Catholic bishops to teach these immigrants to be dependently 'traditionally' Catholic." Wink wink nudge nudge.
Unfortunately for the USCCB, this is a strategy which won't work into the second generation. Catholicism no longer has the education infrastructure it once had, ranting against secularism in the public schools has not been particularly effective. Second generation Latinos are dropping the Church almost as fast as their American counterparts when they are not becoming Evangelical protestants. In the main America does not have the kind of immature social consciousness it had 150 years ago. I'm not so sure about the institutional face of Roman Catholicism.