www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News What is going on in Austria?

The Diocese of Linz is supposedly the most liberal diocese in Europe. Whatwith the Holy Father's gracious and charitable lifting of the excommunications of the SSPX bishops, Bishop Williamson's incendiary comments about the Holocaust, and a conservative priest appointed by the Pope to become auxiliary of the Linz diocese (the priest has now asked the Pope to withdraw his nomination, and the Pope has agreed to) - well, all that spells trouble for the quasi-Catholics of Austria.

Some of the faithful threatened schism were Fr. Wagner to be appointed, and 31 of the 39 diocesan priests of Linz signed a declaration declaring no confidence in him. Apparently a large percentage of the clergy there are homosexuals - with an agenda of destruction of the Faith.

I think if I were Pope I'd nominate V. Gene Robinson to become the new auxiliary (just for laughs), place the whole diocese under interdict, and just end the charades.

As some of you may recall, I lived in Austria the summer before last. Such a terrible shame to see a country with such a fantastic past go down the tubes like that.

Alexis

Bring back the Emperor!

Fr. Serge

That basically seems like open defiance to me. It also seems to me that if the Papacy can't do anything in the face of such defiance, that is troubling.

AMM:

I think people have an idea that the Pope has some sort of hold over every bishop that is not, in fact, the case. What you are seeing is the gulf between the theory and the practice. Cardinal Schoenborn is certainly not some sort of dissident, but he did move quickly to deal with what is a firestorm in his own yard over two moves that really stirred the pot in Germany and Austria.

First the SSPX bishop Williamson's statement is really inflammatory. It doesn't merit excommunication, but it might have been the better part of prudence to stop the process of lifting his and his brethren's excommunications when his statement hit the airwaves. And with communications being what they are today with cell phones and the internet, it iddn't help the Church or Christian minorities in the Holy Land to have this man appear to be rehabilitated. And this at a time when the Church has been under attack for the past 45 years for what a former Pope has been accused--falsely--of not doing for the Jews. Take a look at eli's post in Town Hall. It looks like the start of some more active persecution because of a man far away who is assumed to be one of them.

Then the nomination of a man who made some inflammatory remarks about the victims of Hurrican Katrina to be a bishop. Wow.

There's another thing going on here, too. The Pope can make mistakes, according to what we believe about the Petrine office and how it works, when he is not teaching about faith and morals. Well, neither of these moves involved teaching about faith and morals. So, wow, again.

And what should Rome (the Pope) do about this firestorm among his fellow bishops? Apply an interdict and risk a schism in Austria--possibly Germany and spreading to otehr countries? Could happen. I have to say that I am appalled that men in high places would say such ignorant things. I expect it of the thugs in Iran. I don't expect it of Europeans who witnessed the Holocaust and who have the video records of the camps that our General Eisenhower ordered to be made after WW2 so that the Holocaust could never be denied.

There is a very nuanced "dance" that goes on between Catholic bishops and Rome. We see it when bishops go to Rome on their ad limina visits, tell the Curia what they want to hear, and then go home and do as they please. The old discipline is gone, if it were ever in place in the first place.

BOB

Then what good is Vatican I?

Physician, heal thyself.

Well, I think that the papacy lost its authority (in practice, not theoretically) when the papacy lost virtually all temporal power. In earlier centuries a Pope could enforce his law by deposing a ruler and freeing his subjects from obedience and loyalty. The popes also had armies at one time and taught (courtesy of Boniface VIII) that the pope has supreme spiritual and temporal power over every soul below heaven and in the words of Leo XIII I believe, the pope was "God on earth." All that is gone now. Not to change the subject to birth control (I am not changing the subject, I'm just using an illustration to make my point!) but the fact that 90something% of Catholics ignore the Pope's teaching on this shows that in practice the pope has not much real authority. Frankly, I think that if some local churches went into schism, not many people would really notice.

Joe

You mean when the Visigoths invaded in 410? Or the when the Huns invaded in 452? How about in 455 when the Vandals came? What about when Justinian retook the City? Or when the Lombards came in 569? Or in 846 when the Saracens attacked? Or in 1309-1377 when the Popes resided in Avignon? In fact, up until Sixtus IV only Gregory VII had any temporal power over any sovereign. Yet Charles VIII invaded Rome in 1494. Julius II and a few of his successors could be considered "Pope-Kings" but just a few years prior to the Council of Trent Rome was sacked by Imperial Troops. And we all know what happened in 1796 when Napoleon invaded Italy, he kowtowed to the Pope, right?

In fact, for the exception of a few real bastards (meant figuratively and literally) The Popes were more interested in the Faith and not in temporal affairs. There are 59 Popes who are Saints and Orthodoxy probably recognizes 53 of them as such.

* I fully acknowledge that Popes like Stephen VI, Julius II, Sixtus IV and Sixtus V, Alexander VI, and Leo X are not to be admired or emulated. I will leave it at that.

Frankly, I find Leo X and Julius II to be fascinating popes and real role models!!!!

"My Kingdom is not of this World."

http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/cardinal.htm

I have been writing and speaking in praise of Patriarch Paul of Serbia for well over a dozen years. But as for the sometimes-asserted Orthodox repudiation of any central authority:

1. The Roman Emperor of the East
2. The Sultan (not even a Christian!)
3. The Tsar of Russia
4. The Soviet government

each in his (or its) time was pressed into service as a "substitute Pope". In varying degrees, each of them managed, for a time, to keep some semblance of order (the Roman Emperor of the East had the greatest success at it, and still did not succeed as well as one could wish - in any case he is no longer available, much to my sorrow).

Meanwhile, the real one is still in Rome, while the unsatisfactory substitutes come and go. There have been numerous obituaries for the Papacy written over the centuries. Still, the Pope lives. Not untroubled, of course - troubles are the heritage of fallen man - but continuing to stand his watch.

Fr. Serge

Dear Fr. Serge:

I find your fidelity to the papacy to be most edifying!

AP

Unsupported statements such as that above serve no legitimate purpose of discussion and are inappropriate!

Many years,

Neil

Is it an unsuported statement? I think that there have been documented discussions of the high level of homosexuality among Catholic clergy. And there is significant anecdotal evidence. I'm not going to get into it here because it would derail the subject. I'll just say this. Years ago, my priest (a Melkite priest) who was quite familiar with the in's and out's of the Church (and who was impeccably trustworthy) told me that the diocese of Atlanta had significant problems with obedience to the truth because of the significantly large number of practicing homosexual clergy. Now I do think that this is relevant because where you have a significant number of clergy living a lifestyle contrary to Catholic teaching, they are not likely to be too sympathetic with papal authority.

Joe