Catholic Church in Austria falls apart - sort of

[MaxQue]

No party wants to abolish the tax?

[Tender Branson]

No party wants to abolish the tax?

It`s a non-issue. The Church Tax is not a state-tax. It's directly paid to the Church. If you don't want to pay it, just quit the church. In that sense, the Church is just a club which needs membership fees. If you don't want to be in that club, get out. Why would the Church provide services to you, if you don't pay anything to them ?

[MaxQue]

No party wants to abolish the tax?

It`s a non-issue. The Church Tax is not a state-tax. It's directly paid to the Church. If you don't want to pay it, just quit the church. In that sense, the Church is just a club which needs membership fees. If you don't want to be in that club, get out. Why would the Church provide services to you, if you don't pay anything to them ?

The Church doesn't provide services. It provides someone to read pages in the Bible, which we all able to do ourselves.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What I don't understand is why people who have no involvement in the Catholic Church at all would continue to remain on the rolls and pay the tax.

I most certainly would never register as Mormon, Muslim or Jewish as I am none, the "hipster church" was kind of a tongue-in-cheek joke. But aren't there evangelical groups that are un-registered? I know lots of Pentecostal types are really apprehensive toward the government (think of that Birther guy from Indiana with the horrible spelling) and would never register with them in any way. Not that I'd ever join one of THOSE churches, I'm thinking more of a liberal on the other side of the spectrum, liberal non-denominational churches usually will say something like they refuse to associate with a denomination because they're open to all people who wish to follow Christ, not just ones baptized or confirmed in a certain church, blah blah blah, (although most do have some type of loose affiliate with a mainline church because someone has to ordain their minister and process marriages and stuff like that. The one I go to on Easter and Christmas is like that but really loosely linked to the ELCA.) But of course those type of churches are pretty much just a US/Canadian and perhaps Australian-type thing...

[Iannis]

Mmmh why the liberal protestant churches, plenty of female and married pastors, in Europe are in deepest crisis, much more than catholic church? Curious, or not?

[Tender Branson]

"Catholic Church in Austria falls apart - sort of"

I wrote this headline, because the final result of what the dissidents will achieve with their demands is very unknown at this point. "Catholic Church in Austria falls apart" is not only taking place because of their actions now, but it's a steady phenomenon because of the actions from within the Church: boring masses, abuse scandals, backwards ideological thoughts that have nothing to do with modern life anymore etc.

In the end, the Catholic Church will do with the dissidents what they have always done in the past: enforce their dictatorial nature and try to quiet or shut out the dysfunctional dissidents. The Catholic Church to me is nothing more than the Borg Collective, with the Pope being the Borg Queen who orders to wipe out dysfunctional drones. Like in "Unimatrix Zero", where Borg drones are infected with a "individuality-virus", the Borg Queen doesn't hestitate to destroy Borg Cubes with tens of thousands of drones on board, just to eliminate the individual "voices", a strategy very similar to the situation of the structure of the Catholic Church in general and in Austria. No matter how many "enlightened" Austrians quit the Church each year, 60.000 or 80.000 or 100.000, the leadership refuses to change their course and supersedes the revolt that is going on within. Instead they strive to assimilate more drones, mostly in poor countries like the Congo etc., people who are too weak and too uneducated to resist. Once people get to know about this dictatorial system, they quit - and quit on masse. Therefore, education is power.

[Franzl]

It's not like the Vatican makes any secret out of their "dictatorial" absolute monarchy.

[Iannis]

"Catholic Church in Austria falls apart - sort of"

I wrote this headline, because the final result of what the dissidents will achieve with their demands is very unknown at this point. "Catholic Church in Austria falls apart" is not only taking place because of their actions now, but it's a steady phenomenon because of the actions from within the Church: boring masses, abuse scandals, backwards ideological thoughts that have nothing to do with modern life anymore etc.

In the end, the Catholic Church will do with the dissidents what they have always done in the past: enforce their dictatorial nature and try to quiet or shut out the dysfunctional dissidents. The Catholic Church to me is nothing more than the Borg Collective, with the Pope being the Borg Queen who orders to wipe out dysfunctional drones. Like in "Unimatrix Zero", where Borg drones are infected with a "individuality-virus", the Borg Queen doesn't hestitate to destroy Borg Cubes with tens of thousands of drones on board, just to eliminate the individual "voices", a strategy very similar to the situation of the structure of the Catholic Church in general and in Austria. No matter how many "enlightened" Austrians quit the Church each year, 60.000 or 80.000 or 100.000, the leadership refuses to change their course and supersedes the revolt that is going on within. Instead they strive to assimilate more drones, mostly in poor countries like the Congo etc., people who are too weak and too uneducated to resist. Once people get to know about this dictatorial system, they quit - and quit on masse. Therefore, education is power.

Probably in Europe the trend is still influenced by a generational difference between old and young, so that believers drop as fast as old people die, but regarding young people the situation seems steady, and moreover the stereotype about education is not valid anymore:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/11/study-more-educated-tend-to-be-more-religious-by-some-measures/

And in Italy if you take under 40 years old, there's the same phenomenon

[republicanism]

Considering that the future of the Catholic Church lies in the Global South (i.e. sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia), it makes better sense for the Papacy to stick to its principles.  Why cater to its fading parishioners in Europe and North America who are pretty much Catholics-in-name-only, when the Church is reaping millions of new, darker-skinned, (and younger) converts who are far more conservative than your average Western Catholic?    

Very true.

[ZuWo]

Mmmh why the liberal protestant churches, plenty of female and married pastors, in Europe are in deepest crisis, much more than catholic church? Curious, or not?

That's a correct observation. In Switzerland, for example, the offical protestant church, which has become very liberal and political in the recent decades, is losing members more rapidly than the catholic church.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Probably in Europe the trend is still influenced by a generational difference between old and young, so that believers drop as fast as old people die, but regarding young people the situation seems steady, and moreover the stereotype about education is not valid anymore:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/11/study-more-educated-tend-to-be-more-religious-by-some-measures/

And in Italy if you take under 40 years old, there's the same phenomenon

Mmmm, did you read the article? It said they are more likely to join mainline churches.

I'm not all that surprised though, people who are more educated might be more likely to put more value on the community/social aspects of church.

I disagree with the bit about them joining the churches of the "upper and middle classes" though, rather it's more likely educated people are more likely to be aware of what various churches teach and are more likely to seek out a church that shares their values rather than just stick around in whatever they were raised in regardless of how much they disagree with it.

Certainly doesn't bode well for the Catholic church there. See my graph above too, note the real problem is that they aren't receiving many converts to replace the people they lose unlike the "none", evangelicals and mainliners...

[TJ in Oregon]

Certainly doesn't bode well for the Catholic church there. See my graph above too, note the real problem is that they aren't receiving many converts to replace the people they lose unlike the "none", evangelicals and mainliners...

Yeah, this is certainly part of the problem. The Catholic Church in the west isn't really set-up to convert people, unlike the Evangelical types who are almost programmed to seek out potential converts. All an evangelical needs to do is convince people to go to church with them a few times and if they like it, well, then they join. Joining the Catholic Church is a long process that people generally don't do until they are sure they want to. It seems to me that almost everyone who joins does it because their spouse is a member or over some doctrinal spat with whatever Protestant sect they came from.

The other complicating factor is that there is a cultural/ethnic/identity component to being Catholic that separates us from Protestants. This has been created from centuries of repression and “us vs. them” feelings. All of this creates a much higher "energy barrier" to joining, so of course fewer people will.

[Insula Dei]

BTW, there is a huge difference, doctrinaly, between married priests and female priests. The latter is very problematic, at best, from the dogmatic standpoint: Catholic teachings would have to be seriously affected for that to ever happen.

The former (i.e., married priests) could happen tomorrow without any problem w/ anything Catholic church believes in religiously. Insisting on priestly celibacy is purely a matter of Church organization and governance, not of doctrine.  In fact, there are numerous married Catholic priests right now. For instance, most Greek Catholic priests in Ukraine (the largest Eastern rite church within Catholicicsm) are married, as are some priests who have converted from Anglicanism, and it causes no insurmountable problem within the Church. If tomorrow the pope were to declare that vows of celibacy are no longer required for ordination, at least as long as the man to be ordained is already married, it would, probably, make those already ordained upset and would imply a major change in the canon law, but it would be perfectly consistent with the the Church's teachings.

Most relevant post in this thread easily. The introduction of a female priest would completely change the meaning of the Catholic ritus, and would frankly, just be a ridiculous gesture meaning something like 'we don't really care either.' I certainly would consider leaving the church over such moves. 

[Iannis]

Probably in Europe the trend is still influenced by a generational difference between old and young, so that believers drop as fast as old people die, but regarding young people the situation seems steady, and moreover the stereotype about education is not valid anymore:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/11/study-more-educated-tend-to-be-more-religious-by-some-measures/

And in Italy if you take under 40 years old, there's the same phenomenon

Mmmm, did you read the article? It said they are more likely to join mainline churches.

I'm not all that surprised though, people who are more educated might be more likely to put more value on the community/social aspects of church.

I disagree with the bit about them joining the churches of the "upper and middle classes" though, rather it's more likely educated people are more likely to be aware of what various churches teach and are more likely to seek out a church that shares their values rather than just stick around in whatever they were raised in regardless of how much they disagree with it.

Certainly doesn't bode well for the Catholic church there. See my graph above too, note the real problem is that they aren't receiving many converts to replace the people they lose unlike the "none", evangelicals and mainliners...

I'm not speaking about US. I know that in America, also in Brazil, for example, evangelicals are receiving more and more support. I want just to observe that in the future the stereotype about "simple", not edicated flocking to the church and "clever ones" not going.
When there is not anymore any family and social obligation to adhere to a church, and it must bea choice, so, as I see among young people in Italy, the most indifferent to any religious issue are the less educated, not for some ideological position, but because these people remain indifferent to something that goes beyond "money, football and pussy", speaking clearly. Something similar to what happens with politics.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

BTW, there is a huge difference, doctrinaly, between married priests and female priests. The latter is very problematic, at best, from the dogmatic standpoint: Catholic teachings would have to be seriously affected for that to ever happen.

The former (i.e., married priests) could happen tomorrow without any problem w/ anything Catholic church believes in religiously. Insisting on priestly celibacy is purely a matter of Church organization and governance, not of doctrine.  In fact, there are numerous married Catholic priests right now. For instance, most Greek Catholic priests in Ukraine (the largest Eastern rite church within Catholicicsm) are married, as are some priests who have converted from Anglicanism, and it causes no insurmountable problem within the Church. If tomorrow the pope were to declare that vows of celibacy are no longer required for ordination, at least as long as the man to be ordained is already married, it would, probably, make those already ordained upset and would imply a major change in the canon law, but it would be perfectly consistent with the the Church's teachings.

Most relevant post in this thread easily. The introduction of a female priest would completely change the meaning of the Catholic ritus, and would frankly, just be a ridiculous gesture meaning something like 'we don't really care either.' I certainly would consider leaving the church over such moves. 

Why, exactly, does the Catholic ritus have to be discriminatory to have meaning? Or rather, why is that portion of the Catholic ritus, as opposed to that of some other church, that attracts you to the church and makes you want to be a member connected to the fact that significant portions of the priesthood of my church would be laughed off if they were lucky and excommunicated if they weren't if they tried to express their callings in yours?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

BTW, there is a huge difference, doctrinaly, between married priests and female priests. The latter is very problematic, at best, from the dogmatic standpoint: Catholic teachings would have to be seriously affected for that to ever happen.

The former (i.e., married priests) could happen tomorrow without any problem w/ anything Catholic church believes in religiously. Insisting on priestly celibacy is purely a matter of Church organization and governance, not of doctrine.  In fact, there are numerous married Catholic priests right now. For instance, most Greek Catholic priests in Ukraine (the largest Eastern rite church within Catholicicsm) are married, as are some priests who have converted from Anglicanism, and it causes no insurmountable problem within the Church. If tomorrow the pope were to declare that vows of celibacy are no longer required for ordination, at least as long as the man to be ordained is already married, it would, probably, make those already ordained upset and would imply a major change in the canon law, but it would be perfectly consistent with the the Church's teachings.

Most relevant post in this thread easily. The introduction of a female priest would completely change the meaning of the Catholic ritus, and would frankly, just be a ridiculous gesture meaning something like 'we don't really care either.' I certainly would consider leaving the church over such moves. 

Why, exactly, does the Catholic ritus have to be discriminatory to have meaning? Or rather, why is that portion of the Catholic ritus, as opposed to that of some other church, that attracts you to the church and makes you want to be a member connected to the fact that significant portions of the priesthood of my church would be laughed off if they were lucky and excommunicated if they weren't if they tried to express their callings in yours?

I agree with the point here. And this issue really is a dealbreaker for me, I won't go to a church that isn't completely egalitarian in this regard. But really, I can't have much sympathy for "Catholics" who just whine about it or women who seek ordination and get excommunicated. They can just convert and get ordained in the Episcopal church and the liberal Catholics remind me of Zell Miller whining about how the party left him and similar blue dogs. If the organization doesn't fit you, leave. The same applies of course to the conservative Anglicans Al loves to poke fun at and all that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

BTW, there is a huge difference, doctrinaly, between married priests and female priests. The latter is very problematic, at best, from the dogmatic standpoint: Catholic teachings would have to be seriously affected for that to ever happen.

The former (i.e., married priests) could happen tomorrow without any problem w/ anything Catholic church believes in religiously. Insisting on priestly celibacy is purely a matter of Church organization and governance, not of doctrine.  In fact, there are numerous married Catholic priests right now. For instance, most Greek Catholic priests in Ukraine (the largest Eastern rite church within Catholicicsm) are married, as are some priests who have converted from Anglicanism, and it causes no insurmountable problem within the Church. If tomorrow the pope were to declare that vows of celibacy are no longer required for ordination, at least as long as the man to be ordained is already married, it would, probably, make those already ordained upset and would imply a major change in the canon law, but it would be perfectly consistent with the the Church's teachings.

Most relevant post in this thread easily. The introduction of a female priest would completely change the meaning of the Catholic ritus, and would frankly, just be a ridiculous gesture meaning something like 'we don't really care either.' I certainly would consider leaving the church over such moves. 

Why, exactly, does the Catholic ritus have to be discriminatory to have meaning? Or rather, why is that portion of the Catholic ritus, as opposed to that of some other church, that attracts you to the church and makes you want to be a member connected to the fact that significant portions of the priesthood of my church would be laughed off if they were lucky and excommunicated if they weren't if they tried to express their callings in yours?

I agree with the point here. And this issue really is a dealbreaker for me, I won't go to a church that isn't completely egalitarian in this regard. But really, I can't have much sympathy for "Catholics" who just whine about it or women who seek ordination and get excommunicated. They can just convert and get ordained in the Episcopal church and the liberal Catholics remind me of Zell Miller whining about how the party left him and similar blue dogs. If the organization doesn't fit you, leave. The same applies of course to the conservative Anglicans Al loves to poke fun at and all that.

I have sympathy on a cultural level. As I think TJ pointed out, Catholicism has a strong cultural component, at least in some ethnic and historic groups, that can make it very emotionally trying for people to up and leave.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I should note that the Biblical basis for denying women ordination or a senior role in the church is very weak, it's basically taking literally some letters from Paul out of context and applying them to 2000 years later which they were obviously not intended for. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is also pretty misunderstood due to the understandable fact that just about anyone today is going to read it from a 21st century mindset instead of a 1st century one.

In a nutshell: What Paul was actually trying to say was that women DID have the right to study scriptures and take an active role in the church, which at the time was a radically progressive and feminist idea, but that it would be inappropriate to give a woman a leadership role AT THAT TIME because the idea of allowing women to study and have any level of activity in the church was still a new idea and they hadn't achieved the level of education for leadership yet, just as someone with a PhD in a topic will be taken as more of an authority than an undergrad student in it. And the "quietness and full submission" was simply referring to that they should study in a quiet, peaceful and independent environment, not being pestered by others as to how they "should" interpret things, the original Greek text for "full submission" actually translates more closely to a state of peaceful serenity. And above all one can not discount the fact that in the first century the most controversial part of the statement "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission." would actually be the "A woman should learn" part.

[Insula Dei]

BTW, there is a huge difference, doctrinaly, between married priests and female priests. The latter is very problematic, at best, from the dogmatic standpoint: Catholic teachings would have to be seriously affected for that to ever happen.

The former (i.e., married priests) could happen tomorrow without any problem w/ anything Catholic church believes in religiously. Insisting on priestly celibacy is purely a matter of Church organization and governance, not of doctrine.  In fact, there are numerous married Catholic priests right now. For instance, most Greek Catholic priests in Ukraine (the largest Eastern rite church within Catholicicsm) are married, as are some priests who have converted from Anglicanism, and it causes no insurmountable problem within the Church. If tomorrow the pope were to declare that vows of celibacy are no longer required for ordination, at least as long as the man to be ordained is already married, it would, probably, make those already ordained upset and would imply a major change in the canon law, but it would be perfectly consistent with the the Church's teachings.

Most relevant post in this thread easily. The introduction of a female priest would completely change the meaning of the Catholic ritus, and would frankly, just be a ridiculous gesture meaning something like 'we don't really care either.' I certainly would consider leaving the church over such moves. 

Why, exactly, does the Catholic ritus have to be discriminatory to have meaning? Or rather, why is that portion of the Catholic ritus, as opposed to that of some other church, that attracts you to the church and makes you want to be a member connected to the fact that significant portions of the priesthood of my church would be laughed off if they were lucky and excommunicated if they weren't if they tried to express their callings in yours?

Oh, you misunderstand me a bit there, I think. I'm not a catholic because I don't like gay marriage, women priests, or non-celibatory priests (,especially the last one is really not a dealbreaker for me). The reason I'm a catholic is because I find myself subscribing to Catholic dogma on just about every theologically meaningfull issue. The reason I think a female priest would be 'unacceptable' is because I'd like my church to take my faith at least as seriously as I take my own. When the priest starts the preparation for communion, he also becomes part of an entire system of semantic fields that invokes the central mystery of christianity: the ressurection. The male gender of the priest is a part of that system, invoking the son and the father. (If I really ahd a lot of time and was in a mood to be quite a bit more lighthearted and/or erudite I'd start a long explanation about the 'fallus' and its meaning to the ritus here, but I suppose you can have your imagination fill that in for you if you want). Start fiddling around with that ritual and it loses a lot of its meaning, just the same as what'd happen if you'd go and change words in a poem by a synonym. And again, I'd like my church to take itself seriously enough to not have solemn introspection replaced by gimmicks.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think you just summarized as well why I would never be Catholic even if they had married female priests, or perhaps more descriptively why I would never be Episcopalian even though I respect the very progressive stances many of their churches take. I've go to the point where even have clergy wearing ceremonial vestments (luckily some Lutheran churches don't do this anymore) or even worse dressed up suit and tie style like the Baptists/megachurches is too much.

I think this explains a lot as to why there aren't any non-purely nominal Catholics in my subculture as well...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

When the priest starts the preparation for communion, he also becomes part of an entire system of semantic fields that invokes the central mystery of christianity: the ressurection. The male gender of the priest is a part of that system, invoking the son and the father. (If I really ahd a lot of time and was in a mood to be quite a bit more lighthearted and/or erudite I'd start a long explanation about the 'fallus' and its meaning to the ritus here, but I suppose you can have your imagination fill that in for you if you want). Start fiddling around with that ritual and it loses a lot of its meaning, just the same as what'd happen if you'd go and change words in a poem by a synonym. And again, I'd like my church to take itself seriously enough to not have solemn introspection replaced by gimmicks.

All right, this makes sense but I can't take it remotely seriously because whenever I read something like this my mind flashes to this woman http://www.gracechurchamherst.org/intro/staff/MBJ.htm and how much I look up to and respect her and how the idea that her performing the sacraments is somehow illegitimate or represents somebody not taking something seriously makes me vaguely sick. But then, I'm not familiar with the precise differences in Catholic liturgy (the last Catholic Mass I heard was in French and I didn't understand very much of it). For all I know there could be significantly less emphasis on the Holy Ghost, Who is not, linguistically speaking, male by default, at least in English, which would make a little more sense even though it would strike me as theologically somewhat strange. (Of course, no person of the Trinity is actually male in any human sense except for the Son during the period of the Incarnation).

You're right, I can certainly imagine the role of the phallus in that semantic interpretation, but I have to say that in years of going to Episcopal/Anglican churches  I've never, at any point, thought 'hey, the invocation of the Resurrection in the form of this ritual could certainly be improved if all of these priests had a penis!'. I have to say that has legit never once occurred to me.

You're also right that it does nevertheless still make a lot more sense than the knee-jerk patriarchalism that in my experience more often motivates this. I should have given you more credit; sorry.