Catholic Church in Austria falls apart - sort of

[Tender Branson]

Austrian priests defy Catholic Church, clash with Cardinal Schönborn looms



(Reuters) - Dissident Austrian priests defying their Catholic Church with calls for married clergy, women priests and other reforms enjoy wide public support, according to a new poll on a dispute that could lead to their dismissal.

Three-quarters of people polled in the traditionally Catholic country backed the priests' "Call to Disobedience," a manifesto that Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn compares to a football team refusing to play by the rules.

The revolt, openly supported by 329 priests, threatens a split in the Austrian Church weeks before Pope Benedict's Sept 22-25 visit to neighbouring Germany. Benedict, 84, grew up in Bavarian villages close to the Austrian border.

Rather than simply appealing for reforms, the dissidents declared they will break Church rules by giving communion to Protestants and remarried divorced Catholics or allowing lay people to preach and head parishes without a priest.

Schoenborn has hinted they would be disciplined if they do not back down in the coming weeks. "This cannot go on," he told the Vienna daily Der Standard. "If someone has decided to go down the path of dissent, that has consequences."

Dissident leader Rev Helmut Schueller, who as Vienna vicar general was Schoenborn's deputy from 1995 to 1999 and once led the Austrian chapter of the international Catholic charity Caritas, has said he has no intention of giving up.

He says many priests are already quietly breaking the rules anyway, often with the knowledge of their bishops, and his campaign aims to force the hierarchy to agree to change. About 8 percent of Austrian priests have supported his movement.

SOLID SUPPORT FOR SCHUELLER

Reformist Austrian Catholics have repeatedly challenged the conservative policies of Benedict and his late predecessor Pope John Paul in recent decades, creating grass-roots protest movements and advocating changes the Vatican refuses to make.

Paul Zulehner, a leading Catholic theologian, said the Church must act urgently if it wants to avoid a confrontation. "It could come to a crash, to a split," he told Austrian radio.

The survey published this week by the Oekonsult polling group showed 76 percent of Austrians queried supported Schueller and his colleagues. Some 85 percent said the Church should not do anything to drive away its reform-minded members.

While the poll was not limited to Catholics, 70 percent of the respondents said the Church and its leaders were "a very important moral authority" for them. Some 66 percent said they liked Schoenborn personally.

Schueller is now a parish priest and university chaplain in Vienna. If he is dismissed, 97 percent of those polled said, a "very large wave" of people leaving the Church would follow.

A record 87,000 Austrians left the Church in 2010, many in reaction to sexual abuse scandals there.

In the past year, over 800 people have registered complaints of molestation by priests after the sexual abuse scandals rocking the Church in Ireland, Belgium and other European countries also broke out in Austria.

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/08/31/austrian-priests-defy-catholic-church-clash-with-cardinal-schonborn-looms

It's about time this backwards club called Roman-Catholic Chruch is reformed ...

[Tender Branson]

The latest Market poll for the newspaper Standard is a devastating sign towards the Pope:

86% of Austrians favor Catholic priests getting married, just 6% are opposed.

83% say that women should become priests, with 9% opposed.

"Does the Catholic Church nowadays have the right answers for people ?"

  2% Yes, absolutely
11% Maybe
32% Not
51% Absolutely Not

What kind of religious person are you ?

21% engaged Catholic
50% Catholic in name only
18% were Catholic, but left the Church
11% I´m not associated with the Catholic Church

http://derstandard.at/1313025308549/Religion-und-Politik-Mehrheit-vertraut-der-Kirche-nicht-mehr

[greenforest32]

I love to see religion declining in public sentiment

[Keystone Phil]

The latest Market poll for the newspaper Standard is a devastating sign towards the Pope:

86% of Austrians favor Catholic priests getting married, just 6% are opposed.

83% say that women should become priests, with 9% opposed.

Oh, no! The Pope better watch out in the next round of Roman Catholic elections!

If these are top issues for Roman Catholics then they aren't really Roman Catholics. The poll itself admits that with 50% saying they're Catholic in name only.

[Insula Dei]

The latest Market poll for the newspaper Standard is a devastating sign towards the Pope:

86% of Austrians favor Catholic priests getting married, just 6% are opposed.

83% say that women should become priests, with 9% opposed.

Oh, no! The Pope better watch out in the next round of Roman Catholic elections!

If these are top issues for Roman Catholics then they aren't really Roman Catholics. The poll itself admits that with 50% saying they're Catholic in name only.

Weird to find myself agreeing with Keystone Phil.

[Simfan34]

Um. Wow. This in a country where the vast majority are Catholic. It's rather shocking stuff, to say the least. When has the last major schism on this scale occurred? Not since the Reformation, I'd imagine.

[TJ in Oregon]

The latest Market poll for the newspaper Standard is a devastating sign towards the Pope:

86% of Austrians favor Catholic priests getting married, just 6% are opposed.

83% say that women should become priests, with 9% opposed.

I fail to see how having female and married priests would solve the abuse crisis. This is a non-sequitur.

[Simfan34]

If the church did reform, how do you think this would affect their numbers?

[TJ in Oregon]

If the church did reform, how do you think this would affect their numbers?

I'll leave this for an Austria to answer, but personally I suspect the change in the numbers wouldn't even be noticeable. Why would having a married priest suddenly make people start going to Mass and Confession and changing the way they live their lives?

Another thing to note, the Church teaches that it does not have the authority to ordain female priests even if it wanted to (though there has never been an ex cathedra decree on this). Refusing married priests is simply a discipline of the Latin Rite Church and could be changed at any time. The Eastern Catholic Rites already allow married priests and the Roman Rite also permits it under certain circumstances, such as a conversion of a minister or Orthodox priest.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

lol @ the ultra-Papists and their strange fetishes.

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

I love to see religion declining in public sentiment

It's one of the most saddening things that I see in the world today. But conversely, Schoenborn and people like him? I really don't think they're helping. I think it would be hard to deny that Schiller and people like him are, at least in part, trying their best to save the Church and ultimately the world from being consigned to the cold fires of purgation (Granted, I think Schoenborn is too, though I don't understand the positioning of the hierarchy which he represents on these issues at all; assuming bad faith in these situations is incredibly dangerous).

Why would having a married priest suddenly make people start going to Mass and Confession and changing the way they live their lives?

At least part of why I'm not Catholic has to do with these things, actually, as is most of why my mother left the church at a young age.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This has always struck me as faintly absurd, or at least not the sort of battle even remotely worth fighting (unlike issues such as, say, gay marriage and contraception, where I at least understand why the Holy See cares even if I completely disagree with it). I've never understood why anybody who opposes female priests actually cares about it all that much (whereas, on the other hand, supporting female priests obviously gives an opening to care, namely 'I want something very badly and it's not happening/I feel a vocation and am not allowed to pursue it').

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I might be in a very small minority here, but this actually makes more sense to me than the ban on female priests, in that somebody's decisions about sex and love do at least tangentially have to do with their soul, whereas nobody can control what sex they're born as. I know that if I end up entering an Anglican Holy Order I won't feel comfortable ever marrying or having sex, so even though I don't support a ban I can actually understand the reasoning behind it quite well.

[minionofmidas]

I love to see religion declining in public sentiment

It's one of the most saddening things that I see in the world today. But conversely, Schoenborn and people like him? I really don't think they're helping. Schiller and people like him are, at least in part, trying their best to save the Church and ultimately the world from being consigned to the cold fires of purgation.

Schönborn is just a run of the mill Catholic functionary, and saying what any such would have to be. Not some neocon (by the standards of the church hierarchy. Which are, alas, what they are).

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

I love to see religion declining in public sentiment

It's one of the most saddening things that I see in the world today. But conversely, Schoenborn and people like him? I really don't think they're helping. Schiller and people like him are, at least in part, trying their best to save the Church and ultimately the world from being consigned to the cold fires of purgation.

Schönborn is just a run of the mill Catholic functionary, and saying what any such would have to be. Not some neocon (by the standards of the church hierarchy. Which are, alas, what they are).

Yes, I realised that it's not Schoenborn's fault as I was typing that, which I edited my post to reflect.

Random note: Does anybody think it might be a good idea to move this thread to Religion & Philosophy?

[TJ in Oregon]

It's one of the most saddening things that I see in the world today. But conversely, Schoenborn and people like him? I really don't think they're helping. I think it would be hard to deny that Schiller and people like him are, at least in part, trying their best to save the Church and ultimately the world from being consigned to the cold fires of purgation (Granted, I think Schoenborn is too, though I don't understand the positioning of the hierarchy which he represents on these issues at all; assuming bad faith in these situations is incredibly dangerous).

Sure, people like Schoenborn are unlikely to change the world, but he’s in a hard place. If he joins the rebellion, it will just lead to a greater schism. He has to express the Church’s stances to the best of his ability; that’s part of his job as a bishop. Schueller may be trying to save the Church, but by starting a rebellion he will only lead people away. Note the number of people who responded in the poll that if Schueller is dismissed, which the Church will have to do if he continues to publically dissent.

Why would having a married priest suddenly make people start going to Mass and Confession and changing the way they live their lives?

At least part of why I'm not Catholic has to do with these things, actually, as is most of why my mother left the church at a young age.

This may be true for a few individuals, but there doesn’t seem to have been a massive conversion to Protestantism in Austria. Rather those involved seem to have stopped practicing Christianity altogether.

Another thing to note, the Church teaches that it does not have the authority to ordain female priests even if it wanted to (though there has never been an ex cathedra decree on this).

This has always struck me as faintly absurd, or at least not the sort of battle even remotely worth fighting (unlike issues such as, say, gay marriage and contraception, where I at least understand why the Holy See cares even if I completely disagree with it). I've never understood why anybody who opposes female priests actually cares about it all that much (whereas, on the other hand, supporting female priests obviously gives an opening to care, namely 'I want something very badly and it's not happening/I feel a vocation and am not allowed to pursue it').

The problem here is that the Church is supposed to be based the actual teachings of Christ, not political pragmatism. I know there have been plenty of examples over the centuries where this didn’t happen, but in this case, the Church views that it does not have the option of ordaining women because Christ ordained only male disciples. In my experience there aren’t that many people who are really energetic about stopping female ordination but rather only anger directed at the dissention and rebellion because it goes against the Church. Most of the people who really care about the ordination of women in and of itself, in my experience, seem to be those in favor.

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

The problem here is that the Church is supposed to be based the actual teachings of Christ, not political pragmatism. I know there have been plenty of examples over the centuries where this didn’t happen, but in this case, the Church views that it does not have the option of ordaining women because Christ ordained only male disciples.

In my original post there was an explanation of why I don't feel that that makes any sense (namely, there are any number of demographic factoids about the early Church of that nature, and I think it has far more to do with the social environment in which Christ lived and the way the Bible was written/emphasized than with anything inherent about women). It got lost at some point as I was editing it. Basically, I do understand the reasoning but I'm still at a loss as to why anybody thinks that that's somehow a necessary feature of Christ's Church, rather than a quirk of the time and place in which He was incarnated; but then, I'm always reluctant to admit that sex and gender are relevant to much of anything, so maybe this makes more sense to other people.

Of course the Church's actions shouldn't be based on political expedience. I'm not claiming that Jesus' actions were based on political expedience either; I just don't believe that the job of the Church should be an attempt to preserve some kind of microcosm of the religious gender dynamics of two thousand years ago.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All right, that makes more sense. Thank you.

[Keystone Phil]

If the church did reform, how do you think this would affect their numbers?

It would make little to no impact if the suggested "reforms" were implemented. Those complaining about this stuff would simply find something else about which to complain.

[ZuWo]

It seems only a question of time until similar public protests build momentum in many other countries of Western Europe. There is a huge gap between the teachings of the church and the way a huge majority of Catholics actually live. Now I am not a Catholic and nor do I sympathise with the Catholic Church, but for the church's sake it would be good if those people who are Catholics in name only or are reformists left the church (even if that would be nearly 75% of church members). It appears to me that the current situation only causes conflicts within the church.

[MaxQue]

Not surprising.

The gap between Catholics and Catholic leadership is huge.

[Frodo]

First, this thread belongs to the 'Religion and Philosophy' board.

Now, as to the post below:

It seems only a question of time until similar public protests build momentum in many other countries of Western Europe.  There is a huge gap between the teachings of the church and the way a huge majority of Catholics actually live. Now I am not a Catholic and nor do I sympathise with the Catholic Church, but for the church's sake it would be good if those people who are Catholics in name only or are reformists left the church (even if that would be nearly 75% of church members). It appears to me that the current situation only causes conflicts within the church.

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?    

[ag]

I fail to see how having <...> married priests would solve the abuse crisis. This is a non-sequitur.

Very simple. That's what the Orthodox do: only married priests may get good parishes. So the "mother" takes care of undue proclivities of the "father", if any. It's like placing a dedicated religious policewoman on a 24 hour dutiy within every priestly household.

Of course, the Orthodox still require all the hierarchs (including bishops) to be monks and monks still have to be assigned to all sorts of sh**tholes where nobody else wants to go, but, at least, most decent parishes are monitored.

[ag]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I agree if the Catholic Church opted to allow married female priests tomorrow there wouldn't be much of an increase in practice in Austria. And probably not immediately in the US either. But I do think that would at least stave off the steady decay of the church, which is evidenced by the fact there are some churches that have effectively become ex-Catholic refuges, take the Episcopalians for example as Nathan noted. They've gone from the church of blueblood WASPs to liberals who like Catholic liturgy. I know that the type of churches I go to are also full of ex-Catholics, a fact which I've heard lampshaded a few times (in a non-insulting manner though.) Here's something worthy of note by the way:



But I think this type of action is effectively meaningless, the market for choice already exists. Why didn't these priests just go for Protestant ordination instead? Austria is still about 5% Protestant after all, and that number would be a lot higher if all these "Catholics" that had such issues would just leave and join a church that better reflects their values like so many American Catholics do. And if they don't want to and don't really practice Christianity anymore, fine, but then acting like you have any right to speak about the practices of any Christian denomination is pretty comical. It'd be like me demanding that that imans issue decrees allowing alcohol consumption amongst Muslims.

Rather than simply appealing for reforms, the dissidents declared they will break Church rules by giving communion to Protestants

Now this strikes me as similar to committing vandalism as a form of political protest. I think the Catholic church's exclusivist position on communion is pretty valid if you accept what they believe about it. I don't of course, and I would never seek to take communion if I ever somehow found myself in a Catholic church even if I was "allowed" to (note that there's nothing stopping me, it's not like they can card you or anything). And it doesn't have anything to do with the type of thing they're protesting against. BTW I have to add that the way they do communion at that "happy clappy" church I posted about earlier is one of the few things I dislike about it, it strikes me as almost disrespectful in a way.

[Tender Branson]

But I think this type of action is effectively meaningless, the market for choice already exists. Why didn't these priests just go for Protestant ordination instead? Austria is still about 5% Protestant after all, and that number would be a lot higher if all these "Catholics" that had such issues would just leave and join a church that better reflects their values like so many American Catholics do.

That is hardly an option either. The Austrian Catholic Church charges you 1.1% of your monthly income in Church Tax, the Evangelical Church charges you 1.5% - so I guess many people are just leaving the Church alltogether.

There are many taxes and fees in Austria that suck money out of your pocket, so quitting the Church is one of the first and best things to do. I save myself about 250€ (360$) with this each year.

I won't marry anyway (and in the extremely unlikely event that I do, you can go to the registrar's office to register the marriage).

So what else is your benefit to remain in the Church ? It's better to invest the 250€ in a NGO, instead of a dictatorial, oppressive and backwards regime in the Vatican.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Ah yeah I forgot about your church tax thing like Germany. If the "Evangelical Church" is the Lutherans that seems kind of silly to charge more, but I suppose they have fewer members and those might be a bit more dedicated.

How progressive is the Evangelical Church? If they are and tolerant like the Church of Sweden, or at least as much as the ELCA, I'd be willing to pay the tax. If not...well then hopefully there's some unregistered hipster church somewhere in Austria.

[Tender Branson]

Ah yeah I forgot about your church tax thing like Germany. If the "Evangelical Church" is the Lutherans that seems kind of silly to charge more, but I suppose they have fewer members and those might be a bit more dedicated.

How progressive is the Evangelical Church? If they are and tolerant like the Church of Sweden, or at least as much as the ELCA, I'd be willing to pay the tax. If not...well then hopefully there's some unregistered hipster church somewhere in Austria.

Yeah, you could become a Mormon, Muslim, Jewish etc.

But I don't know if you have to pay church tax when you register there.

BTW, leaving the Catholic Church is far more easier here in bigger cities than in smaller towns. if you leave it, the priest will normally read the names of those who left during the Sunday mass ...

Not a good thing if the people speak about this behind your back (even though it's only old people these days who visit the mass, but nonetheless this reminds me of the time between 1200-1700, when they talked about "witches and red-haired women" ...