Austrian Bishops Respond to Catholic “Rebellion”: Continuing Dialogue Promised

November 14, 2011 — Terence Weldon

Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna has responded to the Austrian rebels with a promise of dialogue, not discipline: jaw-jaw before war-war: but has firmly rejected calls to “disobedience”.

Last week the Austrian branch of “We are Church” issued a statement of support for the Austrian priests’ earlier “call to disobedience, and at the same time urged laypeople to start making up for clergy shortages by consecrating and distributing Holy Communion, as well as preaching and presiding at Mass.

This call immediately preceded a four-day meeting  of the Austrian bishops, at which the priests’ rebellion was already due to be discussed. The bishops have now concluded their meeting, and have released a statement in response, which is well worth reading and considering carefully.

Part of the response is entirely predictable – a rejection of the principle of disobedience, and for lay people to celebrate the Mass themselves.

The bishops said that some demands connected to “this call for disobedience at the initiative of priests and laity are simply unsustainable” and breach “the central truth of our Catholic faith.”

USCatholic.org

I’m not sure that this is correct – I would have thought that the “central truth” of our Catholic faith was to follow the example of one Jesus Christ – who was notably wary of slavish adherence to religious rules and religious leaders.  Just consider, for instance, the words from the Gospel reading two weeks ago, and in particular its closing lines:

You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers. 

Call no one on earth your father;
you have but one Father in heaven.
Do not be called ‘Master’;
you have but one master, the Christ. 
The greatest among you must be your servant.
Whoever exalts himself will be humbled;
but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”

No, the “central truth” that is being breached here is not that of the Catholic faith, but of clerical (and especially episcopal) power, that has been gradually claimed for themselves in a two millennium long power grab. What the call for lay celebration of the Eucharist does, is to return to the practice of the earliest church, when communities chose from amongst themselves people to lead their liturgies. These served as part-time ministers, not full-time professionals – and bishops did not even exist.

The issue of “disobedience” specifically is another matter – but it cuts both ways. It is true that priests take vows of obedience to the bishops – but the bishops in turn are supposed to be responsive to the needs of the Church. The overwhelming evidence from research the world over, is that (collectively) they are not.

But inside the statement, there is also encouragement. It is clear that the Austrian bishops have recognized the seriousness of the crisis, and while they reject the rebels’ outright defiance, they have some sympathy with their fundamental aims. They have attempted to show a conciliatory tone, and to demonstrate some common ground. They too, are anxious for reform and renewal. They also emphasise a flexible understanding of “obedience” itself, which does not have to be blind and slavish:

“As bishops, we are all naturally concerned about our church’s real and serious problems –Austrian dioceses are facing up to the situation and taking opportunities to innovate,” said a statement issued at the end of the Nov. 7-10 meeting.

In their statement, the bishops said the duty of obedience had its source “in the Bible and living tradition of the church” and did not mean “being blind or slavish.” They said debates were under way in each diocese and they were confident they would “find answers to the questions asked today.”

USCatholic.org

That’s in the formal, prepared statement, as quoted by US Catholic Magazine. Behind the scenes, we can be sure that there will be much more, continuing discussion (not for public dissemination). This was explicitly promised by Cardinal Schonborn, in a press conference following their meeting.

“We are in talks and will remain in talks because I and the bishops are still convinced that a lot can and must be cleared up by dialogue,” Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schönborn said on Friday after a four-day meeting of bishops.

Equally interesting, as always in discussions of ecclesiastical politics, is what is not said: there is absolutely no mention of disciplinary sanctions against the rebels, imposed or threatened.

The bishops find themselves in an impossible situation. It is clear that they have substantial sympathy with the aims of the Austrian reform movement, but they are unable to comply with the demands with themselves falling into direct conflict with their own superiors in Rome. As the view from the Vatican, and that from ordinary Catholic households, continues to drift further and further apart, the challenge to Austrian bishops in attempting to straddle the divide will be repeated, in many other countries.

 Related articles

Enhanced by Zemanta
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Share|
Posted in Church Reform, Ministry, Church structure. Tags: , , , . RSS feed for comments on this post.. TrackBack URL.
  • Promotor Fidei

    If you read this post BE SURE to read ALL of it:

    I will refer you to the rather extensive comment I made on an article you posted a few days ago regarding the Austrian call to SCHISM. I was heart broken when I read   “No, the “central truth” that is being breached here is not that of the Catholic faith, but of clerical (and especially episcopal) power, that has been gradually claimed for themselves in a two millennium long power grab.”That is the definition of Protestantism. You have (obviously unknowingly) revealed yourself to be a protestant at heart. Whether or not you like the look and feel and traditions of Catholicism do not make you a catholic.      The many protestant groups throughout history have had the following in common:
      – Rejection of the authority of the Pope and the hierarchy, 
     -  the rejection of the need for ordained priests, 
     - rejection of nature of sacraments being anything other than a communal gathering 
     - the and a claimed “return to the ways of the early church which did not have all this ritual, priesthood, etc.” 

        Protestants claim that the only thing that truly matters is the word of Jesus Christ as found in the bible (which the Catholic Hierarchy MADE and whose authority the legitimacy of the bible is based on; which makes the authority of the bible questionable if you reject its source). Like I said in my earlier comment, CATHOLICISM REQUIRES BOTH MAGISTERIUM/TRADITION AND SCRIPTURE. Scripture alone IS THE SINGLE MOST DEFINING ATTRIBUTE OF PROTESTANTISM. Your view is that of the protestants of the 1500-1600′s. looking at the church from a backward to forward view point, as if the bible came before the church, and that the bible is sufficient for the christian faith. HOWEVER ANY OBJECTIVE STUDY OF THE BIBLE (such as what we do in the field of religious studies) REVEALS THAT SCRIPTURE IS ABSOLUTELY USELESS  FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN A BASIC TELLING OF THE LIFE OF JESUS AS SOME PEOPLE SAW IT.  

         THere is no one theology in the bible, there are many VAUGE outlines of many different theologies in the bible. Furthermore, Jesus himself was entirely too vague for anything to be objectively draw out of the bible to advocate the overturning of magisterium or tradition of any kind. THAT IS WHY IT HAS SURVIVED FOR SO LONG. The trinity, the fall of man, original sin, and so on and so forth, ALL ARE READ INTO THE BIBLE!!!! THE BIBLE HAS NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT OR DISCREDIT 90% OF WHAT CHRISTIANS BELIEVE OR ARGUE ABOUT, that is why there are so many christian churches that all have opposing doctrines, dogmas, and theologies; because when you overthrow the magisterium and tradition and focus on scripture THE RESULT IS NOTHING MORE THAN PERSONAL OPINION AND ANARCHY. Luther was ENTIRELY confounded as to why he was unable to keep people from inventing new wild doctrines (like calvanist predestination; the idea that god created much of humanity specifically for them to burn in hell for ever and ever), and it was because he failed to see that everything he believed in he either had read into the bible himself or was a carry over from the catholic magisterium’s views.

    Furthermore, the bible has so many mistranslations, alterations, and FLAT OUT ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS that it alone is an entirely UNRELIABLE document to gather ANY idea what original christian communities were like, let alone what Jesus actually taught and did. I suggest you read some HIGHLY ACCREDITED SCHOLARS on such matters. I would recommend reading at least the introduction to Bart Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus”, where he details his personal struggle with the failures of the bible.

    Also, Jesus criticized the corruption of the law by the religious establishment, he did not reject the legitimacy of the priesthood, not did question need for it. God founded Israel to be a nation of priests, and jesus himself had no issue with an established hierarchical priesthood, what he did have issue with was legalism among the priests “the letter of the law over spirit of the law” so to speak. Furthermore, Jesus had TONS of followers and believes in HIS LIFETIME that HE KNEW PERSONALLY, yet he only gave permission to SPECIFIC people to carry on his work. 
         So the idea that the majority of a group or even the individual christian can accurately discern his teachings was not supported by Jesus. 
         Furthermore, he EXPLICITLY TAUGHT AGAINST PERSONAL AND POLITICAL FREEDOM. Both he and aristotle (or it might have been plato) commanded his followers to abandon political concerns and issues of personal freedoms to do what you want, and focus PURELY on your internal spiritual life, that is what he was meant by the line “render unto caesar what is caesar’s and to god what is god’s”. The idea that jesus supports ANY socio-political movement or idea is PURELY HUMANS PROJECTING THIER VIEWS ONTO THE AMBIGUITY OF JESUS’ TEACHINGS.

    I get VERY annoyed when people reference the ‘early church’ as if that were any kind of guide to go by, I was not this utopia of christians who followed the bible and were free from the ‘oppressive hierarchy’. First of all, THERE WASNT EVEN A BIBLE OR MUCH OF ANY CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURE AT THAT TIME PERIOD TO BEGIN WITH. Second problem: HOW FAR BACK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. THere were many practices by many early Christians in the so called ‘early church’ that you would not agree with, why not bring those back? Furthermore, “No bishops in the early church” is an extremely misleading statement. By the time the apostles started to die off, and it was apparent that jesus was not immediately returning (like all early Christians including paul believed) the Churches quickly started organizing. Before  100 AD (LESS a full generation after Jesus died) christians started organizing hierarchical structures to meet the long term needs of their growing churches. They rapidly developed positions of authority over churches and regions, THESE ARE BISHOPS. they were not called bishops, the term bishop did not even enter into the english language until AFTER THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD, but there were defiantly bishops during the medieval ages!. Bishop just refers to a person of authority in the religion, and they have been around SINCE THE EARLIEST DAYS OF THE CHURCH. Ignatius of Antioch was THE THIRD BISHOP OF ANTIOCH AND HE DIED ABOUT THE YEAR 108 AD. Which means  that in less than 70 years after Jesus died there had already been  3 different men who held the office of Bishop in that city. In fact, this THIRD bishop of Antioch studied DIRECTLY with THE APOSTLE JOHN. SO YES, THE OFFICE OF THE BISHOP HAS CHANGED OVER TIME AND IN NAME, BUT FROM ITS EARLIEST DAYS THERE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THE EQUIVALENT OF BISHOPS: AN AUTHORITATIVE REGIONAL OFFICE. 

     Your view is a PURELY MODERN WESTERN ONE. one that places the will of individuals over the unity of the community. THAT IS ANTI_CATHOLIC. The recent situation in austria IS A DE FACTO REJECTION OF THE HEART OF CATHOLICSM. I am not a clergyman, nor are any of the people I know who hold Doctorates in Religious Studies; many of them are staunch atheists, but atheist or not, or clergy or not: ALL OF THEM SPEAK IN UNISON AND AGREE THAT THIS IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE HEART OF CATHOLICISM. IT IS A BREAK IN CATHOLICITY EXACTLY LIKE HENRY VIII’S ANGLICAN CHURCH, THE FRENCH REVOLUTION’S CONSTITUTIONAL CLERGY, AND COUNTLESS OTHER EXAMPLES THROUGH-OUT HISOTY.

    Catholic is a greek word, and it means THE WHOLE, EVERYTHING TOGETHER. It IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH INDIVIDUALISM. if you still disagree then you are placing your own opinion over ALL OF THE EDUCATED CLERGY, LAY PEOPLE, AND NON-AFFLIATES (including hindu’s, muslims, American sectarianists, and Atheists) WHO HAVE STUDIED WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS AND WHAT IT MEANS TO BE CATHOLIC.

    You cannot support the recent turn that the austrian church has taken and still be a catholic, for the simple reason that it does not meet the definition of catholicity. It is no different than claiming to be a Baptist but believing in the Hindu Gods’. It is not compatible with what it means to be Baptist. No one religion is better than another, protestants and non-christians are not going to hell. But THERE ARE DETERMINING FACTORS OVER IF SOMETHING IS COMPATIBLE WITH A RELIGION AND IF IT IS NOT. In-fact, Buddhism is actually more compatible with the Catholic Church than American Protestantism is, however you can only see that after intensive study of both, as on the surface they seem entirely opposed. 

    I say this not in a condemnatory way, but as a friend, you need to have a better understanding of Catholicism, where it can flex, where it can be re-molded, and where it can flat out reverse itself; and where it cannot. You will then be able to make an educated decision on whether or not you want want to change some of your views to be compatible with Catholicism or if you would prefer to change your religious affiliation to something that fits your current views and understandings. Neither is right or wrong, and I support you in any religious path you take (as I do with all of my friends, whether hindu, jewish, muslim, sikhist, daoist, protestant, Wiccan, or atheist), but you must make an adjustment somewhere, you have to take one side or the other on this issue; either catholicity or individualism and rejection of the hierarchy.

    • http://queeringthechurch.com Terence Weldon

      I’m not going to reply to all the points in this lengthy posting, but I really must make some things clear.

      First, I am NOT a Protestant, and flatly reject the fairly regular assertions that in expressing some dissent, I am. I was born, baptized, and educated as a Catholic. As a young adult, I drifted away from the Church, but later made a clear and adult decision to return to the fold, and have ever since taken an active part in Catholic sacramental life. Conversely, if the mark of a Protestant is the claim that “the only thing that truly matters is the word of Jesus Christ as found in the bible”, then that disqualifies me as a Protestant, for I reject that claim. Obviously, the Gospels and the rest of the bible are important – but they must be interpreted with care, and the Church offers help in that. I fully accept that there is great value in the teaching authority of the church as it has developed over the years, as I explained carefully in an early post: . “Magisterium and me”

      However, just as the bible needs to be interpreted with care, so must church teaching. As Pope Benedict has observed (when a much younger Fr Ratzinger), alongside the valuable tradition of the church, there is a distorting tradition we must be on our guard against. As Pope, he reminded us that Joan of Arc was tried, convicted, and condemned to the stake by approved theologians and leaders of the Church – but is not revered as a saint. Theologians, and accepted teaching, can be wrong. We must also remember that it is inevitable that when speaking or making rules about power and authority, those who already have it will emphasise its importance. Over two thousand years, the pope and bishops have steadily concentrated power around themselves, in their own self- interest. The theoretical arguments for this concentration were made in the nineteenth century reaction to the secular revolutions that swept across Europe, climaxing in the First Vatican Council and its emphasis on papal infallibility. The practical implementation came in the twentieth century, when technological innovation enabled rapid communication and with it, central control that was simply not possible before.

      In the full tradition of the Church, unswerving loyalty and blind obedience are not required. A longer historical view, as well as the proceedings of the Second Vatican Council, remind us that there are times when there is not only a right, but even an obligation, to dissent, and to speak out.

      On this specific post, you also misunderstand me. I am not here advocating for the priests (I have specifically pointed out that Cardinal Schonborn cannot accede to their requests), but reporting on what has happened – with some commentary on why it is understandable that things have come to this impasse. For the record, I am not convinced that direct disobedience, with Mass
      celebrated by untrained laypeople, is the way to go: but nor am I prepared to simply condemn those that do feel that way.

      I also do not want to see an to the papacy and episcopacy – only an end to the totalitarian, unaccountable dictatorship we now have. The church needs structure and leadership – but this must be genuinely responsive to the needs and views of all its members.

  • Promotor Fidei

     I suggest you watch this lecture by an EXTREMELY LIBERAL Priest-Professor, at at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago which was founded on and staunchly advocates “the spirit of Vatican 2″. It is VERY VERY PROGRESSIVE, and I have found many conservative catholics condemning it (and I doubt that Benedict would be very pleased with it either).  However, it is apart of the Consortium of Theological and religious studies schools in Chicago that is HIGHLY REPUTABLE and is at the center of research and scholarship on such topics in the US (it is also the only one with a catholic orientation in the consortium, the rest are protestant or secular). I will be applying there (among other places) for graduate school in 2 months.  
    The lecture is entitled, “Reaching for Fidelity: What it means to be Catholic Today”  I am just enamored with this lecture, and it revealed to me that the definition of what is and isnt catholic is far more broad and liberal than I used to think it was. It made me proud to be Catholic again. That being said, there are still a few elements that are required for something to be considered catholic. I hope that you post this lecture as one of your articles this week, as I think that many many people (both conservative and liberal) would benefit from it. http://www.youtube.com/user/LearnAtCTU#p/u/5/6WpLqtaQirE

«
»

Switch to our mobile site