The Internet has been abuzz with reports that Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna, Austria has made some rather unusual statements.
The one that has been getting the biggest headlines is that he criticized (explicitly or implicitly, accounts seem to differ) Cardinal Angelo Sodano, accusing him of blocking an investigation of Viennese Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer in the 1990s, when then-Cardinal Ratzinger wanted to initiate an investigation regarding allegations that Groer had committed sexual abuse.
The investigation wasn’t held, but Groer was soon replaced as the cardinal archbishop of Vienna by Schonborn himself. (Read about Groer here.)
He’s also allegedly said that the Roman Curia is in urgent need of reform and that Pope Benedict is gently working toward that goal.
While it’s certainly noteworthy for one cardinal to publicly criticize another—whether explicitly or implicitly—any remarks Schonborn may have made regarding Sodano or the need for curial reform pale in comparison to other remarks he is reported to have made.
According to The Tablet:
Questioned on the Church’s attitude to homosexuals, the cardinal said: “We should give more consideration to the quality of homosexual relationships,” adding: “A stable relationship is certainly better than if someone chooses to be promiscuous.”
The cardinal also said the Church needed to reconsider its view of re-married divorcees [receiving Communion without an annulment and convalidation] “as many people don’t even marry at all any longer”.
The primary thing to consider should not be the sin, but people’s striving to live according to the commandments, he said. Instead of a morality based on duty, we should work towards a morality based on happiness, he continued.
YIKES!!!
If the good Cardinal is being accurately represented by The Tablet then something is very definitely wrong. But before betting the farm on The Tablet’s accuracy, we should note a few things.
First, we’re dealing with story in translation, because the Cardinal’s remarks were presumably delivered in German, as we was apparently speaking to members of the Austrian press. We therefore have to watch out for possible translation issues.
Second, the facts of the whole situation are unclear. I haven’t been able yet to even determine the nature of the event in which Cardinal Schonborn made his remarks. Precisely what day did it happen? Accounts vary. Was it a press conference, an interview, or some kind of informal get-together? Accounts vary. Was it to Austrian press editors or reporters? Accounts vary. LifeSiteNews is even reporting that he made his remarks to The Tablet. (As The Tablet’s story makes clear, he was speaking to members of the Austrian media; The Tablet is a British publication that was merely doing an English-language story on the Austrian session.)
Third, and more importantly, we don’t have a transcript of the event—in German or English. I’ve done a bunch of searching online, including Austrian news services, and I haven’t been able to come up with a fuller account of his remarks. Without a transcript, we can’t tell what precisely he said and in what context. All we have to go on are press summaries and partial quotations, and we all know how reliable those can be.
Context and exact quotations are important. Consider, for example, the final claim attributed to the Cardinal, that “Instead of a morality based on duty, we should work towards a morality based on happiness, he continued.”
Sounds like situation ethics or utilitarianism, with the denial that any acts are intrinsically wrong, so that you can do whatever makes you happy, or whatever promotes the most happiness—a position firmly rejected in the Catechism and John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor—right?
Well, that may be the way it sounds based on how The Tablet reported it, but The Tablet didn’t actually quote him, so suppose Cardinal Schonborn actually said something like this: “Many of us were raised with the idea that God’s laws are imposed on us arbitrarily, from without, and that we need to focus on obeying them as a matter of duty alone, totally unconnected from the good that God’s laws are meant to bring us. In reality, God’s laws are not arbitrary or capricious. They are not imposed from without. Rather, they are based on human nature and are designed—as John Paul II said in Veritatis Splendor—to bring us happiness and human fulfillment. It is precisely by obeying God’s laws that we find true fulfillment and eternal happiness, and we need to work toward a situation where people realize this rather than just viewing God’s laws as a matter of sheer duty towards arbitrary commandments.”
Doesn’t sound nearly as bad, does it?
In fact, it sounds a lot like things John Paul II and Benedict XVI have said—and like what a cardinal in Austria might say given the disastrous pastoral situation in that country, which was the one that gave us the Wir Sind Kirche or “We Are Church” movement back in the 1990s. The country is so secularized and the situation so pastorally fragile that one could cut the cardinal archbishop of Vienna some slack for expressing himself in ways that sound different than how he might express himself in areas where adherence to the faith is more robust (just as Paul complimented the religiosity of the pagan Athenians at the Aeropagus as a prelude to preaching the gospel of Christ; Acts 17).
But how far does this kind of explanation go?
I don’t know. I can see how the “morality based on happiness” thing could be redeemed (potentially), but I can’t make heads or tails of his alleged comments concerning the divorce and remarried and whether they should be able to receive Communion. What does many people not marrying any more have to do with that? The sheer inexplicability of this makes me wonder if there is important stuff being deleted.
What about the statements that, “We should give more consideration to the quality of homosexual relationships,” and, “A stable relationship is certainly better than if someone chooses to be promiscuous.”
I don’t know what the first of these means. Certainly there are differences in the “quality” of “homosexual relationships.” A once-in-a-lifetime”, one-night-stand “relationship” is certainly different in quality than an ongoing many-thousands-of-illicit-sexual-acts-with-the-same-person relationship, but why does more consideration need to be given to this—and is this even what the Cardinal has in mind?
It would seem not, if the second assertion is an accurate, in-context quotation. I don’t know at all that a “stable [homosexual] relationship” is better than if someone “chooses to be [homosexually] promiscuous.”
I suppose that viewed exclusively in terms of HIV/AIDs transmission, a “stable” and exclusive homosexual relationship has less chance of spreading AIDs than a promiscuous one and is better in that limited, narrow sense. However, it seems that “stable” homosexual relationships are rarely exclusive.
And if HIV/AIDs is factored out of the picture, I don’t know if the statement is true from any perspective. It seems to me that a person who is promiscuous has a greater chance of burning out and realizing the emptiness and the intrinsic disorder of the homosexual lifestyle than a person who stably and peacefully cohabits with the same homosexual partner for many decades, creating the illusion of a loving—as opposed to an obviously exploitative—relationship.
Still, in the absence of a transcript—or an A/V recording of the remarks—who knows?
Thus far we’ve looked at how Cardinal Schonborn’s reported comments might be more reasonably explained. But it should by no means go without notice that Cardinal Schonborn has said and done things in the past that are, at a minimum, quite eye-opening (here is his Wikipedia page, with the understood limitations of such pages).
So I don’t want to give anybody a free pass regarding this story. There could be press misreporting, there could be misstatements or problematic statements by Cardinal Schonborn, or both.
The problem is: We can’t tell what the situation is.
Thus, for the moment, the whole things goes under the heading of “Media Fail.”
The media has not done its basic job of reporting the facts in a clear and reliable way.
It may have been true, back in the days of the dead-tree/broadcast-only press, that because of economic considerations the media was constrained by word count and air time and that it could only present us with summaries of what newsmakers said, forcing us to rely on their reporters’ fairness and accuracy in composing summaries—but those days are GONE.
There is no longer a rational constraint on the ability of news agencies to provide us with transcripts, or at least audio or visual recordings, of what newsmakers say—complete and thus in context.
And if the press isn’t doing its job in this respect, newsmakers should bring their own recording equipment.
It’s not like it’s hard. A bunch of iPhone apps exist for this purpose.
But with this story we have a Media Fail, with The Tablet and other news sources not linking to the original transcript/recording that we need.
What are your thoughts?
Comments
Post a Comment
You have probably seen this but on the chance that you haven’t, I dare to bother you: http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/05/11/guestview-no-good-deed-goes-unpunished/
For a defense/explanation of Card. Schonborn’s remarks see this article by Fr Joseph Fessio, SJ:
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/05/11/guestview-no-good-deed-goes-unpunished/
He basically states that the article picked juicy-sounding quotes from what were academic point the Cardinal was trying to make.
The Cardinal isn’t exactly known for his orthodoxy or discretion, actually.
If you honestly can’t see any difference between homosexual promiscuity and a loving stable relationship between two people of the same gender something of your humanity has become seriously warped. Re the ‘illusion’ of love - what gives you the perspective to be able to judge? Surely only God can do that. Re the supposed non-exclusivity of gay relationships,given the rate of adultery, there seems to be a sleight of hand in singling out one set of relationships and not another. Mr Akin, those of us who are younger catholics are increasingly looking aghast at you and your like with horror. I know this is wrong - the Gospel requires that we pray for you and hope for your repentance. I will do both.
Your term “media fail” is apt. Unless of course you take into consideration that “media fail” seems to be a style of reporting much in vogue. A style which could also be named “inflame, don’t explain.”
to John Robinson: Perhaps Mr. Akin didn’t express it as well as he could have, but I believe the point is that ANY sexual activity outside of a sacramental marriage is a sin. Doesn’t matter if it is a “stable” or “monogamous”, sexual relationship, nor does it matter if is heterosexual or same sex. Sexual activity outside of a sacramental marriage is a sin. There is no other way to view it and be faithful to the Gospel or to the teaching of the Church. Therefore, a stable homosexual relationship is not better than a promiscuous one.
All I can do is pray that those who don’t understand the above will have their hearts opened to the truth.
Charles Farley, Schoenborn was “editorial secretary” of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which seems rather hard to square with the accusation that he isn’t known for orthodoxy.
To get a grasp on what is going on in the media regarding current Church scandals and crisis, one need only refer to the comments made to the press by Pope Benedict as he traveled this week to Portugal. The Pope seems to sum all this up as he describes these nafarious activities within the Church as “terrifying”. He was not referring to media exactly…but the evil within the Church at present…predicted/revealed in the third secret of Fatima. These are statements directly attibutable to Christ’s Vicar on Earth…and ought to cause Catholics everywhere to sit up and take notice…before falling on their knees and praying as never before! It is not the media we need to be so worried about. They are just bringing us the message, so to speak, that all is not well in Rome…and we better start seriously doing something about it….focusing on the real issues….and let the press be the press. We do have important issues that need addressing…Cardinal Shoeborn among them it would seem.
I was quite amused to read your comments on the value of a stable homosexual relationship versus a promiscuous lifestyle. I had the same reaction to the comment. A “stable” relationship could very well keep the individuals mired in their sin for a much longer time with the illusion that they are “loving” one another. What they are doing would look so similar to marriage. Now, if it were a non-physical monogamous relationship, one could ponder the value of such a relationship.
After getting quite distressed about the Cardinal’s comments, I am waiting for a clarification from either him or the Church. I am very concerned that his comments could be very damaging towards people’s understanding of marriage which would be so harmful theologically. Marriage is one of God’s primary ways of revealing to the world His love for them and it would be so unfortunate for that sign to be marred.
My hunch is that this is probably the start of the seen and unseen “plot” to defame the character of someone who may become the next Pope.
What do I think? I think the burden of proof lies with Schonborn, considering his horrible background. He needs to explain these quotes, and the Catholic press needs to demand it. Don’t you agree?
If Schonborn’s speaking his mind, let him do so. At least he’s candid about his thoughts and actions even if they’re scandalous. I would’ve preferred that the bishops that covered for sexually abusive priests were much more forthright. Maybe fewer lives would have been destroyed if they just came clean about abuse in their dioceses. I’m tired of Catholic pundits trying to cover for clergy. The reason we got into this whole abuse horror was in part because of the Catholic pundit class trying to deflect accusations against criminal hierarchs. Let’s stop sanitizing the statements of clergy for whatever reason.
Let’s also remember that it was Cardinal Schonborn who allowed the display af a painting depicting the Last Supper as a gay orgy on diocesan property. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-557779/Archbishop-Vienna-condemned-displaying-painting-Last-Supper-homosexual-orgy.html
I agree with jmz. I would much prefer a Cardinal speak his mind and be transparent than hide behind veiled secrecy and power tactics, even if it means he occasionally misspeaks (which, according to the link in the first poster’s comment, he does not appear to have done). Frankly, I am tired of hearing pundits AND members of the hierarchy defend each other. It’s like hearing fraternity boys defend the atrocious behavior of some of their brothers at a frat party. I do not want to pile on anyone, I’m just saying it feels like an old tune - “The media attacks, blah, blah.” How about, “It’s time to look inside. It’s time to understand how we -clergy, laity, hierarchy - let this happen.” I am grateful for Pope Benedict’s recent comments and for Cardinal Schonborn’s recent actions (again, see the article mentioned above). I am confident they are moving the Church in that direction.
WHY does the Church need to give more consideration to the “quality” of sodomite relationships?
What “view” of remarried divorcees (adulterers) does the Church need to reconsider?
Without the “spin” that is an effort to make the Cardinal’s comments more acceptable to the Vatican and Curia, I agree competely with his remarks. The “spin” merely reenforces what we have been fed traditionally over the years.
To Ann: you make your points very eloquently and I join you in praying that the Lord will lead us all to a consensus of truth on these matters. As is obvious from my post I respectfully disagree with you on the topic of homosexual relationships. It seems to me on the basis of Catholic tradition’s insistence on the basic goodness of creation which remains its essential character despite its falleness, along with the Council of Trent’s insistence that nothing is do be deemed inherently sinful or fallen in those who have been baptised, that if science ends up proving that homosexuals are indeed created this way and they find through prayer and discernment that they are not being called by the Lord to lives of celibacy through being given this charism of the Holy Spirit, then the living out of baptismal grace for them will take the form of stable monogomous same-sex relationships. To say otherwise would be to deem that the Creator had made a mistake - something which seems to me would be the height of arrogance for limited human beings standing before God the Omnipotent Creator.
To James D re your last comments: It is impossible to hear the compassion of Christ in what you have written. In the Gospels he only ever spoke with that kind of harshness to self-righteous religious people who condemned others without either compassion or mercy. We should all follow the words of our Holy Father spoken today at the shrine of the Blessed Mother and adopt in our hearts the humble penitence that befits sinful human beings.
Here is true charity and true compassion: If a homosexual commits sodomy, he will burn in hell, unless he repents. I don’t want that to happen. I want them to repent. This is the hard truth. And it is Charitable to tell them this. Repent or burn. You don’t have to burn in hell. That is what confession is for.
John Robinson, You are starting from a flawed implied premise. Your argument depends on the assumption that man, as created today, is entirely good.
A cursory look at the doctrine of Original Sin dispels your argument.
Even if it could ever be proven that a man was born with same sex attraction, it does not logically follow that God created him that way.
Original sin, and the disordered desires and tenancy towards sin (concupiscence) that result from it, are inherited from Adam and Eve. They had lost the state of Original Justice and therefore had lost the correct ordering of their passions. Not having this faculty, they couldn’t pass it on towards their children as you can’t give what you don’t have. That means that every one of their descendants, except for the Virgin Mary and Christ himself, were born with disordered passions; a defect of the will.
The Catholic Church has proclaimed for 2000 years that man is born with a damaged nature. It does not follow that God created and willed the damage in our nature.
If a man is born with the defect of a predisposition to homosexual relationships, or if a man is born with the defect of a predisposition to unchaste heterosexual relationships, or if a man is born with the defect of a predisposition to pride (or selfishness, or cowardliness - insert your personal cross here), that just means that he needs the salvation only Christ can bring.
God neither wills, nor creates defects.
Good sense, James D.
Cardinal Shonborn obviously hasn’t read Leviticus 20:13:
I set it out for him and for John Robinson:
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Romans 1:26-27:
The text reads (in the King James Version):
Romans 1:26-27: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet.”
Also:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New American Standard Bible)
9Or (A)do you not know that the unrighteous will not (B)inherit the kingdom of God? (C)Do not be deceived; (D)neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will (E)inherit the kingdom of God.
Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 6:9 I.e. effeminate by perversion
Interesting that you are questioning Bishop Shonborn and some of his words, but not Cardinal Sodano and the great harm he has caused to the church with his obstructive actions, particularly his protection of the “promiscuous homosexual” Maciel.
JamesD just out of interest, what do you mean by ‘his horrible background’?
LOVE this guy! finally a catholic authority who “gets it.” Down with all the hard-lined, hypocritical Catholics who judge people and how they live.
Hmmmm…. Julie, do you see that you’re doing as you accuse all “the hard-lined hypocritical Catholics”? Why- you’re judging them!
it is sad to see the rampant fundamentalism on this thread - biblical fundamentalism by definition lies outside the ambit of Catholicism. Also Maciel had children by at least two different women so calling him a ‘promiscuous homosexual’ seems disingenous to say the least. @redbeard -i do not say that human beings are ‘entirely good’ simply that humans as part of creation retain their essential goodness despite also being fallen. I would point out too that the position I outline is not my own but is that articulated by Holy Mother Church sitting in full ecumenical council at the Council of Trent. To deny the propositions of this council (or any ecumenical council) is to impair one’s communion with the Church and has always been seen in Catholic history as a very serious matter. As Trent itself says: anaethema sit.
John Robinson, You have now set up a straw-man in place of my position and have used the “full ecumenical council at the Council of Trent” to successfully knocked that straw-man down. Not only that, you have shown that the straw man is anaethema. I congratulate you. You got him. He’s both dead and excommunicated.
We can wholly agree that man has an essential goodness. He strives for God, he retains God’s image and likeness. He is, however fallen. He is born with a predisposition to sin. The stain of original sin is real and has real effects on everyone. Please go back and read my previous post as you don’t seem to understand it. Better yet, read the CCC, they have a lot to say about Original Sin.
The CCC Paragraph 403 reads:
“Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”. Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.”
From this, as explained in the previous post, I made the claim that: “Even if it could ever be proven that a man was born with same sex attraction, it does not logically follow that God created him that way” precisely because the Church has always affirmed that all men are born with disordered passions; a predisposition to sin.
Feel free to address the logic of my argument. Just don’t spend time attacking arguments that I’m not making.
In case anyone is wondering, here’s a little of what the CCC has to say about homosexuality in Paragraph 2357:
“Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”
John, You are publicly maintaining a position in opposition to the Church on a matter of defined doctrine (not to mention the 4000+ year unbroken Judeo-Christian condemnation of homosexual actions).
Why is it that you get to choose when to listen to Holy Mother Church and when to disregard her, and yet still use her a a bludgeon against those you disagree with? Why are you trying to anaethema me for restating the Church’s position? This seems rather disingenuous to me.
This kind of reminds me of BXVI’s comment on condoms. He wasn’t saying that using condoms was good (or that prostitution was good), but that one who used a condom was showing a desire for more responsibility, and that the desire for responsibility was good, but needed to be reordered. I hope and pray that Cardinal Schonborn meant that the desire for a monogamous relationship (as opposed to a more promiscuous relationship) is a good desire, but must be reordered true love and true marriage. [I highly recommend reading Wojtyla’s Love and Responsibility; it really does show you what love is all about, from a more philosophical, rather than theological, standpoint (for those who might find his theology biased).]
Hopefully Schoenborn fears at least his final destination : THE HELL !
After covering up all the abuses of the paedophile priests without thinking about the victims!
And yet, the YOUCAT was overseen by this cardinal?
Who’s laughin now?
while I am still allowed to say it…homosexuality is a sin and so is any heterosexuality outside of exclusive and lifelong marriage. The church would be far more effective in healing its sodomites by simply reaching out to fornicators and adulterers and condemning these sins along with any impurity as a serious threat to a persons relationship with God and man and thus ultimate happiness. I am a heterophobe in the same way that I am a homophobe: impurity will hurt the Mystical Body…who said it was easy. I was born with original sin…I’m on no pedestal here but I at lead am not going to let my genitals decide my morality.
I think that the Cardinal is refering to gay couples that practice Chastity. That is better than promiscuity ! Seems like most comments on this topic are assuming that all gays engage in sinful sex. Some of them practice abstinence, believe it or not. Most gays are born with their condition. Any comments ?
You are correct John Robinson and I am thankful for your faith, love, and courage to speak the truth. I also pray that all may one day truly realize Jesus’ words and live accordingly as Jesus stated in Luke 10:25-28: “‘Teacher…what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ ‘What is written in the Law?’ He replied. ‘How do you read it?’ He answered, ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind..and Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ‘You have answered correctly,’ Jesus replied. ‘Do this and you will live.’ ” Here is a link to understand culture of sexuality in biblical times: http://mccchurch.org/download/theology/homosexuality/BibleandHomosexuality.pdf
When the Cardinal Protodeacon says “Habemus Papam!” and if I see Christoph in a white cassock I will smile and THANK GOD!
Me too Mark!!!
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=13870
if you are not following The True God, The God that desires that we overcome our disordered inclinations, including our disordered sexual inclinations, so that we are not led into temptation, but rather, sin no more, then you are not following The God of our Salvation. We will know if we have an anti Pope, a pope who is not in communion with Christ’s Church.
Did Cardinal Schonborn make a statement denying the validity of the statement in The Tablet or did Father Lombardi or Cardinal Bertone address the erroneous statement, or did they allow confusion to prevail?
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.