I don’t see anything that convinces me …

Believe me, I didn’t expect to convince you of anything. ;o)

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.

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

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:

Now Gerhard Swierzek, the Catholic priest of the town of 110 residents, said he did not want to hold masses in Stützenhofen any longer. Swierzek explained he opposed the “sinful lifestyle” of some members of the local Catholic community. Swierzek added he planned to ask clerical leaders for a position in another parish due to recent occurrences.

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.

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:

Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
– Lev 18:22

For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come – sexual immorality, … adultery, … lewdness, … All these evils come from inside and defile a person.
– John 7:21-23

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness … Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator … Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Furthermore … God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness … they invent ways of doing evil … Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
– Rom 1 18,24-30,32

For you can be quite certain that nobody who indulges in sexual immorality … – which is worshiping a false god – can inherit the kingdom of God.
– Eph 5:5

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.”

The Catechism says:

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

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?

If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 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.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
– Matthew 18:15-17

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.

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:

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.

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.

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:

1651 Toward Christians who live in this situation, and who often keep the faith and desire to bring up their children in a Christian manner, priests and the whole community must manifest an attentive solicitude, so that they do not consider themselves separated from the Church, in whose life they can and must participate as baptized persons:

They should be encouraged to listen to the Word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts for justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace.

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?

“If the permission to present oneself as a candidate exists for the divorced and re-married,” “then homosexual tendencies and lifestyle” cannot preclude the election either.
– Fr. George von Horick

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:

I’m not afraid to admit that we have an internal catechetical challenge – a towering one – in convincing our own people of the moral beauty and coherence of what we teach. That’s a biggie … We have gotten gun-shy . . . in speaking with any amount of cogency on chastity and sexual morality …
– Timothy Cardinal Dolan

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.