“Occupy the Church”: Austria’s Catholic Rebellion Gathers Strength.

Two recent reports from Austria show clearly that the Catholic rebellion is gathering strength: survey research shows that two thirds of the country’s priests support calls for urgent reform, and that lay Catholics have announced plans to ignore Church rules that restrict the celebration of Mass to ordained priests. Instead, they will conduct worship and communion themselves where priests are not available. Meanwhile, in Australia, a separate story from Melbourne illustrates how on a much smaller scale, Catholics elsewhere are also willing to defy episcopal control.

Survey: Two Thirds of Austrian Priests Back Priests’ Reform Initiative.

When the Austrian Priests’ dramatic “Call to disobedience” hit the news back in June, there was some uncertainty over just how much support they had. We now have a reliable estimate by a reputable, professional research organization. GfK was commissioned by national broadcaster ORF to check how many priests support the group’s ideas. The answer is remarkable:

  • 68% of Austrian priests see “an urgent need for reform”;
  • in spite of the strong, provocative language of the call, 32% back it “unreservedly”;
  • only 28% oppose it.
Detailed figures show that many of those in support were in favour of debating the various points in detail. Around one in three of Austria’s priests are “radical reformers”, according to researchers while four in 10 could be considered as “moderate reformers”. 
It’s worth recalling, here, just how far-reaching the proposals are.  They want to see women admitted to the priesthood, an end to compulsory celibacy for priests, and for priests to distribute communion to people who have been divorced and remarried. In themselves, these calls are not too extraordinary: many progressive Catholics around the world would agree with the aims. This initiative though, goes well beyond simply pleading for a change in the rules. It is explicitly framed as a “call to disobedience”, and instead urges that where there is a shortage of priests resulting from the continued refusal to ordain women and married men, priests should in effect embark on a work to rule, leaving lay people to fill the gap if necessary, by saying Mass for themselves. They also urge that in the absence of a change in the rules on communion, priests should simply disregard them.
Austrian Lay Catholics Prepare for DIY Mass
In a parallel move, lay Catholics who met over the weekend announced plans to do precisely as the priests’ initiative has urged: for lay people fill the gap in parishes where no priest is available. In support of the plan, they claim that they are placing God’s word in the Bible ahead of mere Church rules.

A manifesto adopted by dozens of activists at the weekend said lay people will preach, consecrate and distribute communion in priestless parishes, said Hans Peter Hurka, head of the group We Are Church.

“Church law bans this. The question is, can Church law overrule the Bible? We are of the opinion, based on findings from the Second Vatican Council, that this (ban) is not possible,” he said Monday.

-Reuters

Austria’s bishops are themselves meeting in a four day session this week. Responding to this will present them with a major challenge. Already, the church is losing members at an alarming rate – last year, over 87 000 Austrian Catholics formally left the Church, an increase of 63% over 2009. The proportion of Austrians who are Catholic is down to just 65%, compared with 89% in 1951. Research earlier this year showed that many of the remaining Catholics admit that they attend Mass only infrequently, and have little or no trust in the Church hiearachy.
  • 41 per cent of Austrians attending mass only on holidays like Easter and Christmas.
  • A further 35% never attend Mass.
  • 45% told researchers that their trust in the Church had been “shattered” by the sexual abuse revelations.
  • A further 27% had no trust in the Church to begin with.
Together with the decline in numbers, will go a decline in revenue. Churches in Austria are funded by the state, in proportion to their signed up members. In 2009, the Church got 395 million euros from the state.  To compound further the loss of revenue, an increasing proportion of those funds are being used to pay compensation to the victims of abuse.
The overwhelming majority of Austrians support the priests’ initiative. Attempts by the bishops to stifle it will simply alienate still further an already disaffected Catholic population. Accommodating them, however, is beyond their power, as the rules in question are set by the Vatican, not by national bishops.

DIY Catholicism, elsewhere.

Austria is not unique in facing these conflicts: Dominicans in the Netherlands proposed priestless Mass back in 2007,  but were warned by their order not to slide into schism. In country after country, the majority of Catholics do not agree with Vatican rules on sexuality, or on the rules for priestly ordination, or many other matters of church discipline. What sets the Austrians apart, is not the simple desire for reform, but the willingness by laypeople and priests to move ahead on implementing reforms without waiting for institutional approval. On a smaller scale, we have seen this kind of DIY Catholicism elsewhere as well – as in the example of the womenpriests’  movement, and in a handful of parishes which are already hosting their own Masses, independently of episcopal control.
The latest example could be that of a parish in South Melbourne, Australia.
Having been told he must retire, Father Bob McGuire calls for public support in helping him stay on as Parish Priest in South Melbourne, saying ‘we’re like Occupy the Church’. 

Despite wanting to stay on and continue his work, Father Bob McGuire has been told by Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart that his tenure as Parish Priest at Saint Peter and Paul’s Parish will end early next year.

The priest, named in July as Victorian of the Year, says he’s concerned that he won’t be able to continue his work with the local community.

“If it was me I wouldn’t give a rats, but it’s not me – it’s us, it’s the village and it’s the church in the village,” says Father Bob.

- ABC, Melbourne

I don’t know too much about the detail of Fr Bob and South Melbourne, but my impression is that there are strong similarities with the case of St Mary’s, Brisbane, and several parishes in the US, where bishops mistakenly thought they could simply silence troublesome priests in the accustomed way, by episcopal decree – and found instead that the congregations themselves chose to relocate to independent premises, with their preferred priest or with none, rather than submit meekly to the unwanted exercise of naked church power.
The Austrian rebellion is not going away any time soon – and may well expand further afield.
Enhanced by Zemanta
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
  • Colkoch

    It will be interesting to see what comes first, a full out rebellion by Catholics in the West or Benedict’s retirement or replacement.  One thing for sure, things will not stay as they are, the center will not hold.

    • http://queeringthechurch.com Terence Weldon

      Agreed, Colleen – but I’m not convinced it’s even limited to the West. In Africa, rules on celibacy are widely ignored, by priests and bishops (the rebel “married priests” movement is much bigger than the RC Womenpriests one, which gets far more coverage). In Asia, bishops are known to want married priests – but are far too polite to make a big fuss. In both, there is strong resentment at the Eurocentric culture of the Vatican, which pays lip service to the principle of inculturation, but prevents its meaningful application.

      The rebellion will be most visible in the West though, where we know that most Catholics simply ignore most CDF rules on sexual ethics, and disagree with those on church discipline and the priesthood. Moderate and progressive Catholics know that it is they who are in the majority, and not the Vatican claque who shout the loudest and (for now) have the ear of the bishops. I am convinced that this progressive wing is finally beginning to flex its muscles – and the bishops are beginning to recognize which side is going to win.

  • Roger

    Everywhere the Church is in collapse.  More and more people demanding that she change her teaching on homosexuality.  This is the greatest threat the Church has ever faced.  And we are losing.  Why are you doing this?  If the Church falls, then the gates of hell will have prevailed.  This would mean Christianity is a lie.

    The demon is conquering the Church.  I don’t understand all of this.  I don’t understand any of it.  The demon is winning.

  • http://queering-the-church.com/blog/ Terence Weldon

    It is not a case of “the Church” collapsing, but strengthening. The Church includes all of us, not just the Vatican and bishops – and these developments, designed to increase the role of the rest of us, will strengthen the church as a whole.

    I’m not sure why you raise homosexuality, which has nothing to do with this post, but again you are wrong. Demands to change Vatican doctrine have nothing to do with “the demon” winning, but truth. The CDF’s own pastoral letter on the subject reminds us of the scriptural injunction to “speak the truth with love”, and that is what is happening now. The truth is that traditional teaching on homosexuality is deeply flawed, and the traditional presentations of the Biblical texts are in conflict with the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s guidelines on the proper interpretation of scripture.

  • Pingback: “Occupy the Church”: Austria’s Catholic Rebellion Gathers Strength | Hear Our Voices

  • Promotor Fidei

    I am sorry but this is an example of what I previously spoke of as reforms and attitudes that are NOT compatible with Catholicism. This already has a name, and it is called protestantism. 
         -The idea that the bible is superior to tradition is a protestant tenant defined by Martin Luther and it is called SOLA SCRIPTURA. The fact that Catholics and Protestants have killed each other for centuries over this very issue is proof that that idea is a REJECTION of the Catholic religion. THe reason that the Church rejects the idea that the bible trumps tradition is because (with a few exceptions) TRADITION IS OLDER THAN THE BIBLE. It was the tradition and magisterium of the hierarchy that PUT THE BIBLE TOGETHER. Tradition and magisterium decided which of the hundreds of christian texts were valid and which were not, and it was the MAGISTERIUM THAT DECLARED THE BIBLE TO BE THE SACRED TEXT OF CHRISTIANITY. THe bible would not exist without either the traditions of the Church or the magisterium. To say that scripture takes priority over tradition is placing the creation over the creator. Unfortunately most people are far to ignorant to understand that (as all GOOD biblical scholars, whether religious or atheist, agree) the traditions and doctrines of the Church plug the MASSIVE HOLES IN THE SCRIPTURE. Contrary to what most “christians” think, there is no cohesive theology, doctrine, or even philosophy in scripture. Jesus was FAR to ambiguous for anything to be OBJECTIVELY draw out of scripture that can trump the Church’s traditions.  Jesus was INTENTIONALLY ambiguous, and the result was that each christian church developed traditions according to their cultures over hundreds of years and HONED BY THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF DEBATE AND PRAYER. Scripture alone is inadequate to support anything other than a basic telling of the life of jesus and what he is claimed to have said. That is why any intensive scholarly analysis of the bible as the sole source of authority in christianity results in one of two things: Atheists and American Sectarianism. The Church put together the Bible TO SUPPLEMENT ITS TRADITIONS. People do not replace their daily meals vitamins and supplement pills, they are simply SUPPORT NOT REPLACEMENT. Catholicism is a ‘both/and’ orientation, and protestantism is an ‘either/or’ orientation. The Catholic religion teaches that you need BOTH scripture AND tradition, where as Protestantism teaches one is more important that then other. The MOMENT that you start trying to decided which is more important you have lost the plot of catholicism all together and become a student of Luther.
               THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE WAY TO PROVE ANY ONE FORM OF CHRISTIANITY ANY MORE VALID OR INVALID THAN ANOTHER, HOWEVER THERE ARE AMPLE WAYS TO OBJECTIVELY PROVE WHETHER SOMETHING IS OR IS NOT VALIDLY CATHOLIC OR COMPATIBLE WITH BEING A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH.

         - The idea that one does not need a validly ordained priest for the Eucharist is THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL REJECTION of Catholicism that is possible; even more so than abolishing the papal office. In the field of Religious Studies, we study religion as a phenomenon in the human experience; we break it down and analyze every detail of it (how it functions in the human mind, what role does it play in the community, etc, etc, etc). One of the most important parts of any religion in the world is RITUAL. Rituals come in a variety of forms and some are more structured and some are less so. What is ritual? It is an acting out of what it means to be a member of that religion or organization. The rituals of secret societies, such as freemasons and the American College Greek system, are reenactments of the core tenants and beliefs of those organizations. Catholicism is no different. The Eucharistic ritual is an acting out of WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A CATHOLIC. EVERY ACCREDITED SCHOLAR OF ANY PERSUASION WILL TELL YOU THAT THE EUCHARIST IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. It is its very core, and there is no reason for it to exist without the Eucharist; which has also been echoed by countless church theologians and popes (but no one seems to care what those people who dedicate their lives to the study of these things have to say, people today are supremely confident in their ignorance and ego). 
          Those who are not serious about attending mass CANNOT BY DEFINITION be serious about partaking in the ritual of the Eucharist, and therefore are not serious about CATHOLICISM. The idea that the eucharist can be validly consecrated by anyone OTHER than a VALIDLY ORDAINED PRIEST is decidedly protestant and is a REJECTION of what it means to be apart of the Catholic church. The French Revolution was derailed by this VERY issue. The Church and the French Revolution is somewhat of a specialty of mine, and I have the direct and support of several professors who hold Doctorates on the French Revolution for my research paper about how the issue of the validity of sacraments by non-validly ordained Clergy almost single handedly was the reason why the Revolution turned into a disaster. The state’s refusal to allow validly ordained priests to celebrate mass forced the French to choose between their country and their religion. EVERYONE is in agreement that celebrating the Eucharist without a validly ordained priest is a form of IDOLATRY in Catholicism because you would be treating as holy a  mere piece of bread rather than the transubstantiated body of christ. Not needing a validly ordained priest to preform the ritual of the Eucharist is A REJECTION of the HEART of Catholicism, and it is an ENTIRELY protestant idea. I have SCORES of books that back up what I say.

    -27% had no trust in the church to begin with? THAT IS NOT CATHOLIC, 
    WHY ARE YOU EVEN CLAIMING TO BE CATHOLIC. NO FAITH IN THE CHURCH MEANS YOU HAVE NO FAITH IN CHRIST, faith in christ but not the church is again a PROTESTANT tenet .
    -35% NEVER attend mass? THAT MEANS THAT THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE EUCHARISTIC RITUAL AND HENCE THE CATHOLIC RELIGION.
    -41% attend mass only on holidays. Did not jesus say that he is only interested in people who are fervent or dead in their religion, and that he would reject those who are luke warm? What is the point of practicing your religion 2 or 3 times a year? THERE IS NO POINT, SAVE YOURSELF THE HASSLE AND BORDEM THAT CLEARLY FEEL AND JUST QUIT ALL TOGETHER.

         -Also, I am sick of everyone acting like this is the first time in history that there has been large scale corruption of some kind among the clergy before. THE CHURCH HAS SURVIVED FAR WORSE CORRUPTION DURING THE DARK AGES AND THE RENAISSANCE PERIOD. The conduct of clerics IS INDEPENDENT OF THE VALIDITY OF THE CHURCH. if there is corruption in the american congress or European parliaments is democracy the problem? is democracy and the idea of the free republic invalidated? Do we loose our trust in democracy and republican traditions? NO. IT IS INDIVIDUALS NOT THE TRADITIONS OF DEMOCRACY that is the problem. LIKEWISE, IT IS INDIVIDUALS NOT THE CHURCH (OR ITS TRADITIONS) THAT ARE THE PROBLEM. IT CAN AND WILL BE FIXED OVER TIME, QUIT BEING SO SELF-CENTERED. The problem is that Europe, and much of the west today, no longer believes in anything anymore. All belief is shallow and easily shattered by ANY hardship and discord. Western societies today are WEAK LAZY and COMPLETELY introspective and self-centered.

         - Do you know who I blame all of this on? Cardinal Roncalli. What has allowed the church to survive 2,000 years is the rule of law. Not even the pope can overrule cannon law on multiple issues. However, there was a massive break in continuity as a result of the well intentioned but misguided second vatican council. The council’s ideas were good, but it was entirely undisciplined and far too rapid in implementation. The reason for this is because HE THOUGHT THAT HE WAS ABOVE CHURCH LAW. He often responded to his advisor’s warnings of various things being illegal according to the law with “I am the law”. His attitude of arbitrary will over the law of the church poisoned the council and ever since Catholics have been increasingly given over the idea that you can just change anything whenever you want whenever you want on a whim. No one takes scholarship and objective debate seriously in the church anymore. THe bishops repeatedly flaunt cannon law (like the bishop who is REQUIRED by cannon law to give financial support to the gay priest Fr. Geoff Farrow for firing him, but he feels that he has no need to follow the law of the church). His attitude of his being above the law is rampant among ALL of the clergy, and has directly lead to the scale and severity of the abuse crisis, and it is all thanks to the precedent of John XXIII’s nonchalant FLAUNTING of the law and his complete lack of respect for the need of continuity between the old and the reform. Paul VI is just as guilty as John in this regard. When presented with valid arguments and legal backing that he did not the powers to do certain things, he waived off the issue as absurd and responded “how can the Pope be wrong?”; furthermore, when the council THAT HE APPOINTED TO RESEARCH BIRTH CONTROL gave the strong recommendation for him to accept it, he through all of their hard work and specialty out of the window and replaced it his ‘supreme will’. The near absolutism of John-Paul II and Benedict and their refusal to take valid arguments for reform seriously are further developments of this attitude. The fact that these popes have abolished offices like the devil’s advocate so that they can appoint saints nearly unopposed is further proof of their contempt for and systematic removal the church’s subtle but effective system of checks and balances.
         Only Benedict has seen the problems that such discontinuity and arbitrarianism has wrought on the church, but he has done too little too late. John XXIII and Paul VI poisoned the regenerative cocktail that was the Second Vatican Council, of which the Church then drank and has been slowly dying of a poisoned soul ever since. He broke its keel and the ship has been slowly coming apart. I am only now seeing that Cardinal Siri was right when he said that it would take 400 years for the Church to recover from Roncalli’s Papacy… I just hope that the church will survive that long first. The sudden scale of the uprisings and the nature of the rejection of fundamental church features and tenets has made me wonder if malachi’s prophecy of the “final persecution of the roman church” (if it is true) will not be by mobs of ‘catholics’ who dont understand their religion tearing it apart. I am left wondering (if fatima were true and the 3rd miracle that was released was the real one) that the murdered clergy, religious, and bishop in white represented the institutional and traditional church being rejected and butchered by mobs of catholic lay people rejecting their own religion. 

         - Just because priests’ support an idea or movement DOES NOT mean that it is ok, valid, or good. After all, many MANY priests supported the unnecessary slaughtering  of jews, muslim women and children, and other non-combatants (including other CHRISTIANS) during the crusades in DIRECT DEFIANCE of the orders of the Pope and the tenants of the Christian religion. Many priests also supported the state’s persecution of catholics who would not abandon their religion during the French Revolution. I myself have had to argue with a priest who was a guest lecturer in one of my classes about whether or not the Pope could be a heretic. He was adamant that the Pope could not be one, and I had to pull up the church’s own encyclopedia from before Vatican 2 discussing Papal Infallibility; a doctrine of which REQUIRES THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE POPE CAN BE HERETICAL. The fact that he was so ignorant of such an important article of the Catholic religion clearly shows the affects of Roncalli’s papacy, the lack of education among clergy today, the lack of respect for the rule of law in the church today, and the replacement of it with the arbitrary ‘will’ of John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and their Bishops. This ‘call to disobedience’ has turned in to a flat out ‘call for protesting the church’, which is directly where PROTESTantism got it name from. Austria has gone from reform to Protestantism in one fell swoop.

         - There is so much more than I have to say, but all of this is making me so upset and stressed out that i need to stop. I want the church to change its stance on gay marriage and birth control and include women in some form for ministry; however I cannot support these tactics, I cannot stand with people who do not understand their own religion, its history, or the reasons why it is the way it is. Moving on without the rest of the Church is self-centered, nationalistic, and SEVERS the Austrian Church’s catholicity. All this talk that people throw around of how many of the saints were critical of the hierarchy is one things, but NOT ONE SINGLE SAINT EVER would tolerate lay people preforming the eucharist without a VALID PRIEST. It is DE FACTO SCHISM, there is no personal opinions about it, it is as cut and dry as the fact that the sky is blue and not red: IT IS A BREACH IN CATHOLICITY. THe condemnation of every saint, myter, and devout layman in Catholic history is upon them. Louis XVI and Marie-Anttoinette were executed because they tried to flee France not because of the revolution (the lives of the royal couple were safe at that point), but because they were denied access to a validly ordained priest to preform the ritual of the Eucharist for them. They chose to commit treason by attempting to leave their country because the radicals like Robespierre forced them to pick between their religion and their country; THOUSANDS of Catholics after them had their heads cut off in front of a wild and enthusiastic mob for refusing to abandon their religion. The advent of the ‘anglican’ Austrian Church is at hand.

    • Promotor Fidei

      I’m sorry for the spelling mistakes (like through instead of threw, and myter instead of martyr), I typed it very quickly and was quite brain dead because of a massive test over the history of freedom that I just finished not long before. 

Switch to our mobile site