Please see preceding page for earlier posts today.
Before everything, I think it is unfair to consider the Austrian dissident bishops and the Chinese 'official' bishops in the same breath.
The Austrians have been openly defiant of Catholic orthodox doctrine and practices, and even more spefcifically, of the Pope himself; whereas the 'official' Chinese bishops, under coercion, though they nominally 'take their orders' from the government through the so-called Patriotic Association, have not been accused in any way of otherwise violating Catholic doctrine and practice.
We can only pray that the bishops of the world will take to heart the lessons that Benedict XVI wants to impress on all the priests of the world with the Year of Priests. The fact that judging from their recent actions, some German and Austrian bishops obviously never read teh Pope's March 10 letter to the bishops of the world, does not raise much hope that they will even feel alluded to by the Year for Priests!
Some of the bishops may have become so arrogant - in their mistaken belief that Vatican II conferred on them near-equal ahutority to the Pope - that they perhaps have stopped thinking of themselves as priests, first and foremost. Benedict XVI has never been remiss in showing his own awareness of this in his own person.
Austria and China:
The Vatican's problem bishops
Austrian bishops were called to a meeting with the Pope, who is not happy
that they have allowed rebellions and abuses to run free.
And in China, there are bishops who obey the communist government more than Rome -
though Vatican diplomacy is also at fault, says Cardinal Zen.
ROME, June 19, 2009 - At the end of the month, the bishops of the Fraternity of St. Pius X will ordain new priests, and the Holy See has confirmed that these ordinations as well will be considered illegitimate.
But the Lefebvrist schismatics are not the only bishops who are causing concern for the Roman Church. In recent days, the spotlight has also been shone on two episcopacies that, for different reasons, are also gumming up the works: Austria's, and China's.
On June 15 and 16, all of the bishops of Austria came to Rome
[not all - only four out of 9], called in for a debriefing with Benedict XVI.
They met behind closed doors with the Pope and five heads of the Curia: Cardinals Giovanni Battista Re, of the Congregation for Bishops; William J. Levada, of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; Claudío Hummes, of the Congregation for the Clergy; Zenon Grocholewski, of the Congregation for Catholic Education' and Stanislaw Rylko, of the Pontifical Council for the :aity. There was also the apostolic nuncio to Vienna, Peter Stephan Zurbriggen.
The statement released at the end of the meeting didn't say so, but for two days in a row the Austrian bishops faced severe criticism.
Papa Ratzinger is very familiar with Austria. At the beginning of his pontificate, the Austrian bishops were among the first to have an audience with him. And on November 5, 2005, at the end of their "ad limina" visit, the Pope really let them have it.
He accused them of remaining silent on important points of Christian teaching and morality, out of fear of protest and ridicule. He urged them to finally take the catechism in hand and to teach it from start to finish. He ordered them, literally, to "change course."
Evidently, after more than three years
[that also saw an apostolic visit by the Pope to Austria!], Benedict XVI's impression is that the Austrian bishops have made little or no progress.
More evidence of this comes from what has happened in recent months in the diocese of Linz. On January 31, the Pope had appointed Gerhard Maria Wagner, 54, a local priest with a reputation as a conservative, as auxiliary bishop of this diocese.
There was an immediate explosion of protest from progressive Catholic circles, which criticized the bishop-elect for statements made years ago equating the tsunami in Asia and the hurricane in New Orleans with "divine punishments," and the Harry Potter saga with a diabolical plot. These laughable accusations rapidly led to demands for the withdrawal of his appointment.
The worst thing, in Rome's view, was that the Austrian bishops were careful to avoid defending Wagner's appointment, and so were many of the clergy. The archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, also went along with the crowd. The pressure was so strong that Rome gave in.
On March 2, a terse Vatican statement let it be known that the Pope had "excused" Wagner "from accepting the office of auxiliary bishop of Linz."
The final blow: one of the leaders of the anti-Roman revolt, Josef Friedl, a prominent priest in the diocese of Linz, in declaring victory also revealed that he was living with a woman and paid no attention to the obligation of celibacy, with the approval of his parishioners and of other Austrian priests who also have lovers, and with the tolerance of the bishops.
But the Wagner case was only the culmination of a more general malaise. The final statement of the meeting on June 15-16 listed an extensive series of critical points concerning doctrine, pastoral action, the teaching of the catechism, the clergy, the seminaries, the theological faculties.
Against this backdrop, there is an even clearer contrast between the timidity with which the Austrian bishops govern their respective dioceses and their arrogant claim that it is the role of public opinion to designate new bishops or veto the ones appointed by Rome.
Another glaring contrast concerns the highest ranking Austrian bishop, Cardinal Schönborn. He is supposed to be one of Papa Ratzinger's trusted friends, but at home he gives the anti-Roman forces free rein.
Between February and March, at the height of the controversy over the revocation of the excommunication of the Lefebvrist bishops, the Austrian bishops were among those who made the least effort to defend the Pope.
The bishop of Salzburg, Alois Kothgasser, opined that under Benedict XVI, the Church "is being reduced to a sect."
At the meeting on June 15-16, the Pope tried to bring the Austrian bishops back into line, as can be intuited from this passage in the final statement:
"The Holy Father recalled the urgency of the strengthening of faith and of complete fidelity to Vatican Council II and to the postconciliar magisterium of the Church, and of the renewal of catechesis in the light of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
As for the cohabiting clergy, Austria falls under the more strict general norms established by the Pope last January 30. When a priest lives with a woman and continues to carry out his ministry, the Vatican Congregation for the Clergy has the authority to remove him from the clerical state.
***
The case of the Chinese bishops is more complicated. There, the hierarchy is divided between an official branch recognized by the government of Beijing, and a clandestine branch that does not have this recognition.
This second branch is extremely loyal to the Pope. The 'official' Church, with its bishops nominated by the government, was created by the Communist authorities with the express intention of separating the Church of China from obedience to Rome.
In recent years, many of the official bishops have reconciled with the Pope, with the tacit approval of the government. In 2007, Benedict XVI, with an open letter to the Chinese Catholics, told all of them how to proceed in order to heal the split completely and bring the entire Chinese Church into full communion with Rome.
But more recently, the Chinese authorities have revived the politics of separation. And various official bishops have given in to the pressure.
Cardinal Joseph Zen Zekiun, bishop emeritus of Hong Kong, paints this picture of the current phase in an extensive interview published on June 16 by AsiaNews
[full interview posted in the CHURCH&VATICAN THREAD on that day]:
The shift toward clarity has not taken place. On the contrary, it seems to me that there is an alarming slide along the slope of compromise.
The most alarming episode of this constant compromise, which goes against the pope's guidelines, is the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the first illegitimate episcopal consecrations.
This celebration is scheduled to take place in 2009, and if, as I fear, it were to succeed in obtaining significant participation from bishops and priests, that would be the end.
It would be the complete waste of all of the efforts made in previous years, and an insult to the Holy Father. Yes, it would be just like slapping him in the face, because it would be like completely ignoring his letter to the Chinese Catholics.
But in the same interview, Cardinal Zen also said: "Of course, in China they did everything they could to downplay the pope's letter. But I think that the Holy See should also have given more support to the letter. The Holy See should have followed the Pope further along the line of clarity. It seems to me that this did not take place."
Last March 30, there was a two-day meeting at the Vatican of the commission that Benedict XVI set up in 2007 to study the issues relating to the life of the Catholic Church in China.
The commission is composed of the heads of the dicasteries in the Roman Curia with responsibilities in this area, and some representatives of the Chinese episcopacy and religious congregations.
Cardinal Zen, who took part in this meeting and also in a previous one on March 10-12, 2008, maintains that the Vatican Secretariat of State gives in to compromises with the Chinese authorities because it is aiming above all at reestablishing diplomatic relations:
Diplomatic relations do not fix everything by themselves. On the contrary, they can be deceptive, because they can give the false impression that religious freedom exists.
The most important thing is religious freedom, and certainly this can be facilitated by diplomatic relations. But it is not always true that having one necessarily means having the other.
All else aside, at this moment the possibility that China would establish diplomatic relations with the Vatican seems less likely because relations between Beijing and Taiwan have significantly improved.
So just as there is division among the Chinese bishops in their relationship with Rome, so also Vatican policy appears to be divided. On the one side there is the approach of Cardinal Zen, on the other that of the Secretariat of State.
This second division is also reflected in the specialized Catholic magazines. The agency AsiaNews, under the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions, is with Cardinal Zen. The international monthly
30 Days, directed by former Italian head of state and foreign minister Giulio Andreotti, is with the Secretariat of State.
[Two examples are hardly representative of the world of Catholic media! More research should have been done.
Still, the basic problem with trying to comprehend what is happening in China is the obvious lack of appropriate information getting to the outside world.
Cardinal Zen made this very clear in his interview with ASiaNews - even he, with all his contacts - and as the Pope's point man for monitoring the situation of the Catholics in China - only has a general sense of what is happening: he has no knowledge of what is really taking place in each diocese.
Obviously, neither does the Vatican Secretariat of State, which is normally the lead Vatican agency responsible for collecting in-country information for the Church. But without diplomatic relations, it has no official representation inside China, and must therefore rely on spotty isolated reports from missionaries and other priests within the mainland who are able to communicate with the Vatican.]
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 20/06/2009 06:24]