BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

Hoist on his own petard?
Dissident priests turn the tables on Schoenborn
and praise him for disobeying Church law
when he upheld the election of a practising
homosexual to a parish pastoral council
by Andrea Tornielli
Translated from

April 12, 2012

Peter Paul Kaspar, chaplain of the Academy of Artists of Linz, Austria, and one of the leaders of the dissident priests' movement Pfarrer-Initiative, has written an open letter to the Archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn praising him for having upheld the election of a practising homosexual to the parish council of Stuetzenhofen in his diocese.

Kaspar presented Schoenborn's action as an example of 'disobedience - or better, obedience to your own conscience not to the law laid down by Rome".

It will be recalled that last Maundy Thursday, to everyone's surprise, Pope Benedict XVI in his homily at the Chrismal Mass, referred to the Call to Disobedience signed by some 400 Austrian parish priests.

To the dissenters, who have been demanding drastic reforms such as abolishing priestly celibacy and the ordination of women, the Pope said disobedience was not the right way to reform the Church because this would mean transforming the Church "according to our own desires and ideas".

The Pontiff's words were welcomed by Cardinal Schoenborn, but also by the leader of the Pfarrer-Initiative, who said that althogu he and his followers disagree with the Pope's statement that women priests, for instance, were an impossibility in the Church, he thought the homily was the signal for the start of dialog. [That is, of course, spin, and downright hypocritical. What is there to dialog about? The Church will not change its positions. Are they now saying they can be talked out of their demands? Yeah, right!]

Now Fr. Kaspar has sent this open letter to Schoenborn who had earlier reproached the dissidents for having launched their Call to Disobedience at Pentecost last year.

"The fact that you asked us to reconsider the title of our appeal, instead of disputing its contents," Kaspar wrote, "says much to us of how you understand authority: You referred to the obedience that we owe God, to his teaching, and to our conscience, rather to you personally and to your office".

[Two points about what Kaspar says Schoenborn told them: 1) He did not dispute the contents, only complained about the title! That's just about as milquetoastish as Schoenborn's habitual mien - I was always uneasy about that effete faux-choirboy look - and hardly the firm and decisive position a bishop should take when enforcing dogma or discipline. 2) To tell dissidents against Church teaching that they must be obedient 'to God, to his teaching and to your conscience' is virtually telling them "Go ahead and do your thing, with my blessing" because the dissident will naturally consider his position to be obedient to all three!]

Then Kaspar goes on to speak of the case of Florian Stangl. "You," he wrote Schoenborn, "recently asked to meet a gay parishioner who was elected to a pastoral council by a large majority, but (whose election) would not be accepted by the parish priest because he was cohabiting with a male companion in a registered (same-sex) union. Nevertheless, you upheld his election".

"It is possible", Kaspar continues, "that you will now be accused by a Roman canonical tribunal. But you obviously had time to think this through before you decided to sustain his 'disobedience' [to the parish priest]. At the same time, you also exposed to ridicule the parish priest who had sought to invalidate Stangl's election."

"In any case", the dissident priest concludes, "we consider your decision a positive example of the fact that a bishop in authority is obeying his own conscience even if the Church or Roman law say something else. We approve your own 'disobedience' as a gratifying example of responsibility - in the literal sense - of a 'conscientious' public official".

Although Kaspar refers to the possibility of a canonical proceeding against Schoenborn, no such thing is being considered at the Vatican [because the matter involves a lay person in a lay position, and is therefore not subject to canon law]., But it is possible that Schoenborn will be asked by the Vatican [By which office? The CDF? The Congregation for Bishops? The Apostolic Segnatura?] to explain clearly the reason for the decision he took about Stangl. [The earlier stories about the Stangl case said that the elections to the pastoral council were irregular, to begin with, because the candidates failed to sign a statement before voting, pledging their adherence to the teachings of the Church (which considers the practice of homosexual acts as a sin), as apparently required by the statutes regarding pastoral councils.]