A friend sends the letter and Chrism Mass homily (which Google Chrome will nicely translate for you) from Christoph Cardinal Schönborn dealing with his decision to allow an openly homosexual young man to serve on the parish council to which the people of the parish had elected him. For that, he was quickly jumped on on blog after blog.
The homily gives a much fuller explanation of his thinking than the letter, and readers interested in the matter should read it. In the letter, which I couldn’t find online, he begins by “reiterat[ing]my uncompromised commitment to the Magisterium of the Church in all its fullness, including the Church’s unambiguous teaching on homosexuality,” providing a number of examples. He then turns to
the case of Mr. Florian Stangl. In this very specific and complex case I assumed my pastoral responsibility toward a young man seriously committed in his faith and who has been active in parish life since his childhood. He is fully aware of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and in meeting with Mr. Stangl I have underlined the relevant consequences of these teachings with regard to his own situation. I consider it my pastoral duty to continue to guide Mr. Stangl towards a full life in Christ.
My decision not to intervene in the already completed election by his fellow parishioners of Florian Stangl to their parish council — the results of which do not need approval of the Archbishop in order to be final — was inspired by my genuine desire to help a young man find his way towards a life in union with God’s plan for creation (see my attached sermon of April 2nd which explains this in further detail).
It should also be noted here that the main function of a parish council – composed exclusively of volunteers – is to support the local priest in the organization of parish activities. Doctrinal and liturgical matters explicitly fall outside the scope of responsibilities of the parish council.
The cardinal then complains that “a carefully considered pastoral decision, with all its complexity, is so easily taken by some as an occasion to question a bishop’s fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church.” He concludes by describing the problem that required the pastoral decision and his response:
In Familiaris Consortio, quoted in CCC 1651, John Paul II specifically calls upon the Church to find ways to integrate people “who live in situations that objectively contravene God’s law” (CCC 1650) but who “can and must participate as baptized persons” in the life of the Church.
As I stated in my homily during the Holy Mass of Chrism earlier this week, there is an approach that is neither rigorist nor lax, but in which the law is completed by love. In order to understand and live the Creator’s “master plan”, it is important to recall the norm again and again — but it is not enough. There is only one way to do this, a way that Jesus’ disciples had the chance to learn: by coming to know Jesus better, by growing into his friendship. Only a lived friendship with Jesus can foster in us an inner understanding of the heart for the Creator’s master plan.
“Religion itself, without the experience of the wondrous discovery of the Son of God and communion with him who became our brother, becomes a mere set of principles which are increasingly difficult to understand, and rules which are increasingly hard to accept.” (Blessed John Paul II, Meeting with Youth of Kazakhstan, 23 September 2001)
April 5th, 2012 | 10:28 pm
What happens if this individual molests a child? And what does Church discipline mean? Is the eucharist being withheld as this man is in open disobedience to the teaching of the Scripture and the Church?
April 5th, 2012 | 10:46 pm
Cardinal Schonborn sums it up well when he says, “There is an approach that is neither rigorist nor lax but in which the law is complete by love. In order to understand the Creator’s ‘master plan’, it is important to recall the NORM again and again-but it is not enough. There is only one way to do this, a way that Jesus’ disciples had the chance to learn: by coming to know Jesus better, by growing into His friendship. Only a lived friendship with Jesus can foster in us an inner understanding of the heart of the Creator’s master plan”.
There is no compromise of the teaching of the Church but an application of the ancient moral tradition of the Church which draws people into: apprenticeship with Christ and in the community of disciples, the Church, then an intermediate state in growth in virtue and finally a mature Christian discipleship
This commandment we received on this evening at the Last Supper: love one another as I have loved you. By this all men will know you are my disciples
April 6th, 2012 | 2:21 am
Raymond,
We don’t know if this man is sexually active. We only know that he is “openly homosexual”. The Catechism makes a distinction between inclination and action. If he is as he is described, a seriously practicing Catholic, then he presumably knows that he, like any unmarried Catholic, would, were he sexually active, be in a state of mortal sin and thereby ineligible to receive communion while in that state. But, he, like any other Catholic, may seek absolution through the sacrament of reconciliation.
Heterosexual men molest children too.
April 6th, 2012 | 5:59 am
And one of the first teachings of the Church Florian Stangl needs to learn is that by example we can lead others to sin … so by admitting him on to the pastoral council is not necessarily the way to lead him to Christ. It could be that by explaining why he cannot be admitted, that he is lead to understand his Faith far better!
April 6th, 2012 | 6:27 am
I am not a Catholic, but I am a Christian who agrees that homosexuality is a sin. I think the issue presented is complex and I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the homily.
As I read the New Testament I am struck by how much Jesus addresses his attention to the sins of greed, pride and hypocrisy. If we took these sins as seriously as Jesus did, how many on the parish councils of US churches could be described as living in open sin? If we want to discuss the area of sexual sins, I think that it is fair to say that a significant portion of male hetrosexuals in the church struggle with pornography. Some no longer struggle, but have simply surrendered to it. What about divorce?
I agree that there is a distinction to be made between a person who is struggling with sinful behavior and recognizes it as sin and the person who asks us change biblical norms. In practice, I think that the distinction is more difficult to make than some may think. The difficulty is that we are more willing to make such distinctions regarding those sins which we do not find tempting. We are more forgiving of others who engage in open sinning similar to our own. I struggle with the question whether my own attitude towards homosexuals is colored by the fact that it is not a temptation for me.
Jesus was scathing in his criticisms of the Pharasees who maintained a strict form of religion, but who neglected mercy and love. By contrast he opened his arms towards sinners who were outcasts within their society. Maintaining moral boundaries while ministering to sinners is a daunting challenge.
April 6th, 2012 | 7:49 am
Agree with the Cardinal. The Church is a place for sinners and wretches who are trying to maintain their relationship with Christ. I don’t see any conflict with Church teaching.
April 6th, 2012 | 8:18 am
Raymond –
Presumably the same things that have happened when heterosexual clergy has molested children, no? (Do you have reason to supposed that’s particularly likely in this case, btw? Have you been through the Catholic Church’s “Protecting God’s Children” program?)
April 6th, 2012 | 9:04 am
It is disheartening that the church continues to find ways to compromise and bend the rules in completely predictable areas.
I’ll bet the good cardinal wouldn’t consider putting a Lutheran on the parish counsel.
April 6th, 2012 | 9:33 am
Raymond,
Homosexual does not = pedophile. I appreciate the Cardinal’s consideration of the man as more than his sexual orientation, and trying to look at him with the eyes of Christ. Homosexuals are also children of God who have been given a difficult cross to carry.
April 6th, 2012 | 9:40 am
As Maurice Blondel put it: ”Actions are not simply the putting into practice of logically defined ideas and of geometrically shaped theories; and everything is not decided in the domain of abstractions, as if human beings were only pure intellects, as if concepts were the adequate substitute of things and the sole motivation of the will, as if we governed ourselves by them and them alone. In individual and social practice, there is always something more and different than in the speculative systems that appear to inspire it. That is why the ideas that determine actions do not prevent actions from prompting new ideas that, even setting out from inexact and mutilating theses, can become liberating and healing. The life of human beings and of peoples obeys a more complex logic than that of abstract thought; what one does is often better or worse than what one thinks”
In short , “to study and care for men and peoples, it is not sufficient to treat them as walking syllogisms, to refute errors demonstratively, by dialectical and didactic means to establish truths that impose themselves as fixed structures, like ‘an unchangeable essence.’” The solution of human problems requires the consideration of “historical and economic evolution, to envisage the science of human perspectives, to rely on the slow maturation of problems, to aid the fumblings, to follow the work of implicit thought and carry it through to the end.”
April 6th, 2012 | 10:00 am
It’s so difficult to love the sinner and hate the sin. If the Schonborn situation is what it’s described to be, ie, that they are really proclaiming the Church’s teachings and calling the homosexual person to chastity, then it’s probably the best pastoral decision. Schonborn is no fool.
However, in many cases I suspect it’s more like my own recent experience. I made a talk at a parish where the parish employee who arranged it cautioned me to be careful what I said because the homosexual couple who are active in the parish and are “fathers” (?) to a child in the religious ed program might be present. We must be “pastoral”, which in this case meant we must not assert the norms, but CHANGE the norms. This becomes a scandal to the faithful, and undermines true marriage and family life–”endangered species” in our day.
April 6th, 2012 | 10:35 am
The Cardinal’s rationalization is truly bizarre. Has he taken leave of his senses? If doctrinal adherence does not matter, then why not have Buddhists, atheists, Hindus on the parish council? How about a Sedevacantist or two? If the man in question were married and living openly with his mistress, would the cardinal do this?
I have talked to a number of Catholics who are esteemed for the soundness of their judgment and they are flabbergasted by this. One e-mailed me after reading the news account “Has Cardinal Schonborn gone crazy?”
April 6th, 2012 | 11:26 am
I have often quoted John Paul II’s remarkable address to the Pontifical Council for the Family, “The Pastoral Care of the Divorced and Remarried” in discussing matters such as this, and now I can also refer to Familaris Consortio. It seems to me Cardinal Schönborn has made a very important point, but to those who are alarmed, I think it is important to point out that he has made one decision about one particular person, whom he has personally interviewed. It is not as if he has opened some kind of floodgate.
April 6th, 2012 | 12:57 pm
I can conceive of the Cardinal’s handling of this case as a special pastoral act, right in the eyes of a God whose judgments we often cannot understand, but wholly improper and indefensible so far as the normal ordering of the Church is concerned. There is a sense in which the Cardinal may be taking the young man’s sins upon himself. If it is this, it is an act of love and courage. If, however, it is anything else, it is a sign of culpable weakness for which the criticism he is receiving is just. I can’t tell which, and am glad it is not part of my responsibility to decide.
April 6th, 2012 | 1:18 pm
If the man in question were married and living openly with his mistress, would the cardinal do this?
Stephen M. Barr,
I think a better question is, “If the man in question had been sacramentally married, civilly divorced, had no annulment, and was civilly remarried, would the cardinal do this?” I think the answer would quite possibly be in the affirmative, based on “The Pastoral Care of the Divorced and Remarried,” which I mentioned above. The divorced and remarried, in the eyes of the Church, are living in adultery, and yet that does not prevent John Paul II from recommending they should be involved in parish life. I think a good argument could be made that the divorced and remarried are more in conflict with Catholic doctrine than same-sex couples. After all, the divorced and remarried are not only in a forbidden sexual relationship, they are violating vows they made before a priest while receiving a sacrament. It is probably not all that helpful to rank sins, but certainly a case could be made that an adulterous relationship is at least as sinful as a homosexual one.
April 6th, 2012 | 1:22 pm
I am amazed that anyone finds this even a close call. The man in question is described in news accounts as a “partnered homosexual”. Has this man openly stated that he is living chastely? Has he stated that his “partner” is merely a friend who is sharing his apartment but not his bed? If he had proclaimed this, then there would be no issue at all, and all the cardinal would have had to say is that the man is celibate. Period.
By all means, the cardinal should try to guide this man back to living a Christian life. But while he is publicly flouting serious moral norms and creating scandal thereby, how can he be allowed to participate in guiding the spiritual life of the parish?.
The facts speak for themselves. And the facts are utterly disgraceful.
The Church in Austria suffers from a very high concentration of dissenters and radical progressives. The Pope himself in his Holy Thursday address just YESTERDAY found it necessary to chastise (without mentioning the country by name) a group of Austrian priests that has openly called for rebellion against Church teachings and discipline. Card. Schonborn has frequently seemed to be trying to appease the radicals in his church. He has presided at liturgical travesties
— look on youtube for the “balloon mass” at which he presided. And then there are the cowboy-themed masses that he has approved.
There was his open criticism of Pope Benedict for the supposedly high-handed way the pope tried to appoint a bishop who was too conservative by Austrian standards. The list goes on and on.
He doubtless means well, but he has an incredible talent — really a genius — for misjudging situations.
April 6th, 2012 | 3:06 pm
. . . how can he be allowed to participate in guiding the spiritual life of the parish?
Stephen M. Barr:
David Mills quotes Cardinal Schönborn as saying:
April 6th, 2012 | 3:06 pm
Parish councils do not guide the spiritual life of the parish.
April 6th, 2012 | 3:55 pm
This part of the cardinal’s homily seems relevant:
How many young people really live according to the Church’s ideal of pre-marital chastity? How many re-married couples live “as brother and sister”? How many same-sex couples manage to live their relationships as chaste friendships? Two comments on this point: First—they’re out there! Regardless of how the statistics look. And they are glowing role-models which show us that a life based on the “master plan” is possible, through the grace that is made available to every one of us. And second: It makes a difference whether one fails while trying to live according to God’s plan, or whether one fails without ever having tried.
April 6th, 2012 | 4:08 pm
Parish councils don’t explicitly “guide the spiritual life of the parish” (although they certainly affect it) as “Doctrinal and liturgical matters explicitly fall outside the scope of responsibilities of the parish council.”
But the priest does explicitly guide the parish in doctrinal, liturgical and spiritual matters, and in doing so, to avoid scandal and to avoid legitimizing homosexual fornication in the minds of impressionable parishioners — and homosexual fornication is what a “civil union” certainly sounds like it would involve, since a couple of guys just sharing an apartment typically don’t find it necessary to form a civil union — the priest did the right thing in removing the young man from the parish council.
It was a terrible mistake to overrule the priest, sending a message to young people that wondering about the immorality of homosexual fornication is really silly scrupulosity. A message that shouts that the world’s understanding of human sexuality is right, good and up to date; the Church’s is wrong and old fashioned, so go ahead and contracept, abort and engage in homosexual and heterosexual fornication; sex really is only a matter of recreation – and when it accidentally produces a innocent human being – that is just a mistake to be fixed like one we make jotting a note – we erase it.
April 6th, 2012 | 4:48 pm
It will not do to try to defend the cardinal by pretending that parish councils have negligible functions. They do things. Obviously they do not teach doctrine. Obviously they do not preside over or plan the liturgy. But those points are red herrings.
Is the argument that because these people do not teach catechism class or preside at the Eucharist or hear confession, it does not matter how scandalous their lives are?
If we were talking about the guy who tends the garden at the rectory, or the janitor, it would not matter. But parish councils have a religious role. Here is what canon law says:
“If the diocesan bishop judges it opportune … a pastoral council is to be established in each parish, over which the pastor presides and in which the Christian faithful, together with those who share in pastoral care by virtue of their office in the parish, assist in fostering pastoral activity.”
“Assisting in fostering pastoral activities” is part of the religious life of the parish. It matters whether the people on it are giving moral scandal and bad example..
Yes, attacking pastors in public is something that should not be done except in very exceptional circumstances. Maybe by criticizing the cardinal as I have here I am not doing well. But whatever obligation there maybe be with regard to not attacking the clergy, there is definitely no obligation to rise to the defense of every thing every pastor does, just because they are in Holy Orders. There is a difference between appropriate deference and gross servility.
April 6th, 2012 | 4:57 pm
Firmly concur with Stephen M. Barr’s earlier comments above. Thank you Stephen M. Barr.
April 6th, 2012 | 4:59 pm
“Schonborn is no fool”. I am ready to believe that and hope it is true, but I don’t take it as axiomatic.
April 6th, 2012 | 5:28 pm
Maybe something was lost in translation, but His Excellency did intervene, overruling the pastor in his veto.
April 6th, 2012 | 10:10 pm
Has everyone taken leave of their senses? We are talking about sex, not membership in the Masons. It is more than a little volatile. Imagine trying to guide a gay-leaning son to moral purity in such a parish, where one of the admirably “serious” members lives with his boyfriend, says he “finds the idea of chaste living a little unrealistic,” and lunches with his pal the Cardinal. I might as well be a NYT retreat. And the Cardinals expect to make any sort of dent in the culture war… oh, wait a minute, they aren’t around. They are all attending the commitment ceremony of this fine young man and his partner. After all, he is so serious about the faith. What an utter and total disgrace. The only thing worse is the apparent widespread agreement that the approach is so wonderfully Christian, when it so obviously defies common sense. Someone living in grave sin should not be elected to a parish council. What on earth is so hard about that?
April 6th, 2012 | 11:00 pm
Schonborn’s taking a risk here, and we’ll have to see if it pays off. Will the parish council member decide to separate from his “partner” and live chastely? (I read somewhere that he said that chastity would be “impossible.”) Maybe even get married? Or will he become a scandal? The cardinal has made it clear that sodomy is indeed a sin, but we’ll have to see if anyone listens to that part, or if they read into his decision something else.
April 7th, 2012 | 11:15 am
Schonborn’s “Carefully Considered Pastoral Opinion”
Does the following work any better:
Obama’s “Carefully Considered HHS Mandate”
The vital thing to notice is that it’s “carefully considered”!!
April 7th, 2012 | 1:55 pm
Stephen M. Barr is absolutely right on this matter. No doubt such persons should be integrated into the Church, but to put such a person openly defying the Church’s moral teaching on the parish council is to put this young man up as a model. It is also to send the message to the young man that he is “OK” as he is and really need not change anything. (The same would apply to someone divorced and remarried without a declaration of nullity for the first attempted marriage.) Let him join the men’s club or whatever Austrian Catholics have. But the parish council is something that is voted on, therefore to say that it doesn’t have authority over doctrinal and liturgical matters is disingenuous at best. Whether the Cardinal’s decision is “laxist” or “rigorist” or some tertium quid is really unimportant; he should have thought about the prudence of the decision instead.
April 7th, 2012 | 5:58 pm
I think there’s something distorting in our treatment of “openly acknowledged” sinners. There are certain sins that are pretty hard to hide – especially those related to homosexuality.
Other sins are easier to keep quiet, but they are still very serious sins. Suppose that the Church decided to ban from Church leadership all those who are unrepentant and who sin through the following: contraception, pornography, fudging on their taxes, failing to give an adequate amount of money to charity, lusting in their hearts, over-indulge themselves materially, envy and backbite at those around them, harbor contempt or hatred towards people or groups, etc., etc.
All of these are very destructive sins, but they are easy to hide. Even when people do become aware of these persistent sins in someone, it would be extremely rare that it would become an international incident that people indulging in these sins were to be accepted onto a parish council. We like to think “our sins” aren’t as bad as “their sins.” Hog-wash.
I think we can get a bit over-excited about those whose sins are pretty obvious – two homosexuals living together as “partners”, which at least presents the serious risk of sins against chastity, in comparison to all these other sins that get a “pass”.
I do understand that the risk of scandal and leading others into sin is a serious matter and not to be treated lightly. But I agree that there has to be some kind of balance sought, that makes it clear that homosexual persons are cherished children of God and that we need to find ways to help them towards fuller conversion to God — in the same way that all of us are in need of this help.
April 8th, 2012 | 10:31 am
We can realistically expect that, among members of a parish council, there are those whose lives fail to fulfill God’s Law in one way or another, at one time or another. This is more than likely due to the human condition and because of the influence of our times. Those on the council are not required to be canonize-able saints before or during their tenure of appointment. We would not, however, expect some lack of moral perfection in them to become a demoralizing part of general public knowledge, or to involve unconfessed, ongoing grave sin. These committed parishioners should stand out for good judgment in practical affairs, and for fraternal good will, vision and wisdom, in helping the pastor bring the parish to it’s full pastoral potential. They also, as part of their parish leadership, should, as much as possible, be known for a certain devotional fidelity, for integrity of life, sincerity of purpose, and conformity to Church teaching.
The Lord sat and ate with sinners. He did so as a doctor with the sick, and as a teacher with the dis-informed, ignorant and misled. He did not do so in order to appoint them, in a morally reprehensible state, to leadership among the people. He did so, first to awaken them, then form and train them to take on the features of his own life and mission, and make them eventually become fit, even for leadership, in his image and likeness. Certainly the members of a parish council, or of any parish organization, are meant to follow this pattern of progress. The parish exists as a corporate “alter christus” to lead all its members and, not less so, each of its leaders, to a fullness of life in Christ in this same way.
April 9th, 2012 | 1:43 am
(The same would apply to someone divorced and remarried without a declaration of nullity for the first attempted marriage.)
DavidDeavel,
I infer from the following that the divorced and remarried are not barred from serving on parish councils in Austria:
April 9th, 2012 | 11:22 am
Hi, David Nickol,
If one has obtained a civil divorce and civilly re-married another without an annulment, which means the Church has not officially ruled that one’s prior marriage was not a sacramental marriage, then one is living in serious sin in the eyes of the Church. The Church routinely asks such couples to refrain from receiving the Eucharist until such time as the prior marriage is annulled. Fr. George von Horick doesn’t specify whether he is referring to couples who have no intention of going through the annulment process or not. One has to wonder if that matters to him.
It is a huge mistake, when the Church is being “evangelized” by the world instead of the reverse in terms of human sexuality, to have Church policies that signal its approval of that which is gravely opposed to the traditional Christian view of human sexuality.
The Cardinal Archbishop of New York has admitted that the Church has failed to teach the faithful Catholic teaching on contraception, and so “forfeited the chance to be a coherent moral voice when it comes to one of the more burning issues of the day.” In a frank interview with the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who heads the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, says the Church has failed to communicate its moral teachings in the area of sexuality. He says further that the fault lies with Church leaders:
Apparently Fr. George von Horick is still afraid to admit that the Church is facing a towering catechetical challenge, has gotten gun-shy, and has spoken with policies and actions that contradicted its official teaching, resulting in a presentation of its views without “any amount of cogency on chastity and sexual morality.” God bless Cardinal Dolan for his courage, honesty and frankness. Fr. George von Horick and other clerics need to become a part of the solution instead of worsening the problem.
April 9th, 2012 | 12:48 pm
harry,
I appreciate what you say, but in this case, Cardinal Schönborn reiterated the teachings of the Church on homosexuality in making his statement, and he spoke directly to Florian Stangl about those teachings to make sure Stangl understood them. If Cardinal Schönborn had declared that people in Stangl’s situation could receive communion and participate fully in all Catholic activities as if he were not in a same-sex relationship, that would be one thing. But Cardinal Schönborn did not in any way contradict Church teaching. It is not a teaching of the Church (at least there is none that I have ever heard of) that a divorced and remarried person or a person in a same-sex relationship cannot serve on a parish council. And in fact Cardinal Schönborn cited John Paul II’s words as reflected in the Catechism regarding the divorced and remarried:
Why should the same not be true for people in same-sex relationships? Can’t the Church be clear in its message about remarriage after divorce, or about same-sex relationships, without treating these people as outcasts? Isn’t that what Pope John Paul II was saying?
April 9th, 2012 | 1:47 pm
David Nickol: If this is the attitude toward divorced-and-remarried, then I think the Austrians seriously mistaken here, too.
Sally Rogers and David Nickol: I agree that there needs to be a balance, but simply because other people on the parish council might be sinners in ways that we might not know doesn’t mean that people who are living openly in contradiction of the Church’s teaching should be put in positions that are clearly meant to be seen as leadership positions for the whole parish. I don’t find that not allowing such people to be on the parish council amounts to treating these people as “outcasts” or as not “cherished children of God.” Tad’s comment on this is remarkably clear and charitable.
April 9th, 2012 | 2:31 pm
doesn’t mean that people who are living openly in contradiction of the Church’s teaching should be put in positions that are clearly meant to be seen as leadership positions for the whole parish.
David Deavel,
I do not pretend to be an expert on parish councils in the Austrian Church, but what little I have read leads me to believe that being on a parish council is about service, not leadership. As Cardinal Schönborn said:
April 9th, 2012 | 5:32 pm
David, nor do I know the exact functioning of the parish councils, but I do know what “council” means and I do know what voting usually indicates. This may be service, but it still looks like a position of leadership to me.
April 10th, 2012 | 12:23 am
Hi, David Nickol,
Since the above are the words of Jesus, we know there must be some situations where charity demands (Jesus always teaches us to act charitably) that the Church let someone know that their behavior is out of bounds and that until it is “in bounds” one is not in full communion with the Church.
For Catholics, a “state of grace” is a state where one has no serious or “mortal” sins for which they are unrepentant. One is either in a state of grace or one isn’t. If one isn’t then death isn’t a passage to eternal life, but to eternal loss; one risks everything that really matters by persisting in serious sin. That is one reason why charity demands that the Church let people know when their behavior is out of bounds.
For a shepherd to fail to do so is like his being a passenger in an automobile the driver of which is going way over the speed limit and ignoring road signs; not wanting to be intolerant, he fails to mention to the driver that just over the hill the bridge is out. Things don’t end well for either of them.
April 10th, 2012 | 10:38 am
harry,
The Catechism says:
You or I or Cardinal Schönborn cannot pretend to know whether Florian Stangl, or anyone else, is or is not in a state of grace. That would be extraordinarily presumptuous. Cardinal Schönborn discussed the Church’s teachings on homosexuality with Stangl and confirmed that he understood them. The Cardinal reiterated those teachings in his public statement permitting Stangl to be a member of the parish council. If the issue before Cardinal Schönborn was whether or not Stangl could receive communion, your argument would be sound, although even then, Cardinal Schönborn could not pronounce on whether Stangl was in a state of grace.
The issue is to what degree a person in a same-sex relationship, or a divorced and remarried person, or any other individual in some irregular situation, can participate in parish life. It seems to me Cardinal Schönborn did not really even pronounce on that question. He made a decision in an individual case after interviewing the person involved. Why can’t we trust his judgment in this one case where he knows the individual personally and we don’t?
April 10th, 2012 | 2:01 pm
Right. God knows the true state of a soul. We don’t. That is why Jesus says “Do not judge, and you will not be judged.” (Luke 6:37) But Jesus didn’t mean that we wouldn’t have to make judgments at all. That is why He says, in the passage I cited earlier, “But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’” Establishing the nature of a matter according to the testimony of witnesses requires judgment. Jesus also said “Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?” (Luke 12:57) and “Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.” (John 7:24). Clearly we must make judgments regarding the behavior of people even if we can make no declaration on the state of their souls.
If a member of the local Church is openly, scandalously living in sin – in sin that is clearly “mortal” sin according to the Scriptures, a judgment of the Church on the behavior of that member, not on the state of his soul, is required. And in the case in question here it is mortal sin:
Those in the Church who really love the young man in question will be willing to struggle with him as he struggles to overcome slavery to sin, pray with him and demonstrate to him the mighty love of God for sinners such as we all are. Those who don’t really possess Christian love for sinners, “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death,” will “approve of those who practice them.”
April 10th, 2012 | 3:04 pm
harry,
I don’t see anything that convinces me the young man in question may not serve on this particular parish council if, after an interview with Cardinal Schönborn, the Cardinal finds it appropriate. I am sure Cardinal Schönborn is well aware—as are the rest of us—of what it says in Leviticus about a man lying with a man.
Of interest: The parish priest wants out:
April 10th, 2012 | 3:39 pm
Believe me, I didn’t expect to convince you of anything. ;o)
Well … I know many are aware of that and other related Scripture passages. Again, those who don’t really possess Christian love for sinners, “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death,” will “approve of those who practice them.”
Overruling the parish priest (who really showed love for the young man) and establishing the young man on the parish council against the judgment of the parish priest (which showed dramatic approval of the young man) was a huge mistake and no act of charity towards him. It also undermined belief in the Scriptures and the teaching of the Church. It was a huge mistake every way you look at it, especially at a time when what we need is bold and clear teaching from the Church regarding the traditional Christian view of human sexuality, not endorsement of those who radically violate it. Human nature hasn’t changed, nor has God changed His mind about His plan for human sexuality.
See my post at
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/04/holy-week-ecce-homo-ecce-us
at
4.5.2012 | 4:15pm
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact