Cover
story A dramatic
step toward reform
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
NCR Staff Salzburg, Austria
Catholics gathered here in a special national assembly voted in
overwhelming numbers for what amounts to a sea change in their church. Though
their focus was on Austria, the decisions made over these four days, Oct. 23-26
-- and the process by which they were reached -- are likely to reverberate
around the world.
Majorities surpassing three-quarters of the 260 or so delegates --
drawn from all walks of life and all regions of the country -- endorsed
ordination for married men, freedom for couples to choose which method of birth
control is right for them and allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to
receive the sacraments.
They also supported acceptance of premarital living arrangements
and a more positive view of sex generally, the right of parish councils to make
final decisions without a priests blessing, a greater local role in
selecting bishops and an end to the condemnation of homosexuality. They voted
for ordaining women as deacons but did not address the question of female
priests.
According to observers in Salzburg, the Dialogue for Austria was
apparently the first time anywhere in the world that a bishops conference
has convened a national assembly of Catholics to debate church policies and
then put those policies to a vote -- though similar events have taken place in
some European dioceses. While the results carry no canonical force, they were
widely interpreted in the Austrian press as dramatic evidence of the depth and
breadth of support for reform.
Equally significant, many observers said, is that all factions of
the Austrian church -- from the far right Neocatechumenate movement to We Are
Church, the leading progressive reform group -- were official participants in
the dialogue.
Delegates in Salzburg also adopted an aggressive social justice
platform, calling for a strengthened safety net for all Austrians, legal
protection of Sunday as a national day of rest from work, recognition of a
human right to work and more compassionate policies for refugees
and immigrants.
The results fell short of a complete endorsement of the 1995
petition drive demanding change in the church, the
Kirchenvolks-begehren or peoples movement in the
church, which garnered a half-million signatures. A stronger statement on
optional celibacy, more in keeping with the petition, made it out of committee
only as a minority report and thus did not come up for a vote.
There was no vote for admitting women to the priesthood. A
statement that discussion on the subject should continue was endorsed by one of
the working groups but did not come up for a floor vote. Spokespersons for We
Are Church vowed in its final news conference to continue to press the
issue.
Still, 11 of the 12 subpoints in the 1995 petition were endorsed
in some form by the assembly. We Are Church members were clearly buoyed by the
outcome. I do not want to claim this as a success for us alone,
said Thomas Plankensteiner, the chief spokesperson for the group, in his
concluding address to the delegates. It is a success for the entire
church.
What has become clear is that we are not talking here about
the demands of a radical fringe, but the desires of the heart of the
church. The loudest ovation of the weekend washed over Plankensteiner as
he finished.
This is no longer our petition, Plankensteiner later
said to the press. It is now Austrias petition, and I hope it will
become our bishops petition. Some are already in our favor.
Many Austrians on the pastoral front lines were also clearly
elated. One pastor sought out NCR to say through a translator, I
have already been doing many of these things, you know. But now I wont
have to do it with my head down.
Despite such claims, much remains unresolved in the wake of these
four days. First and foremost is what the Austrian bishops will do with the
enormous mandate for change that has been dropped in their laps. On that point,
fissures were clear the last day of the conference, with progressive bishops
underscoring the call for change and conservatives claiming that no action can
be taken that contradicts the magisterium.
Bishops to visit Rome
The next flash point is likely to be the Austrian bishops
ad limina visit to Rome beginning Nov. 16. The bishops agreed in advance
of the Dialogue for Austria to take the results with them, but some asserted
from the floor that they could not carry a message that ran contrary to the
popes teaching.
Also unclear is the question of whether the Dialogue for Austria
was a one-shot affair or whether it will be repeated on some sort of regular
basis, similar to a synod. More than three-quarters of the delegates here voted
for another assembly in three years, but the bishops were noncommittal.
In what many people suggested was the understatement of the
weekend, on Friday, the opening day of the conference, the Austrian nuncio read
a letter to the delegates from Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican secretary of
state, who said the pope was looking on the Dialogue for Austria with
great interest.
Sodano went on to say that John Paul regarded the Dialogue for
Austria not as a round table of informal exchanges but a kind of sacred
experiment ... In distinction from a conversation of looser design, the
Dialogue must aim at the commuinal finding and recognition of truth.
On Saturday small working groups met to decide which propositions
would come before the full assembly on Sunday for a vote, using a working
document published in advance. Significantly, not a single one of the
conservative proposals published as part of that document -- either on church
or social issues -- made it out of a small group.
At his closing news conference, Johann Weber, the bishop of Graz,
suggested that Dialogue for Austria-style meetings might spread to other
countries. I was at a meeting of European bishops recently, and I was
surprised at how much interest there was in this, he said. Though
we are a small country, Austria has led the way before, in the biblical and
liturgical movements that eventually triumphed at Vatican II, for example.
Theres a perception that synods are too rigid, and
perhaps meetings such as this make sense, Weber said. Weber was acting
over the weekend as head of Austrias bishops conference in the
absence of Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna, who was hospitalized
before the proceedings began with a lung ailment.
Reform groups around the world seem poised to tout the Dialogue
for Austria as a model for national-level consultations in other nations.
This is a key point, said Christian Weisner, a We Are Church
organizer from Germany who was in Salzburg as an observer. If this can
happen in Austria, why can it not happen other places? If Catholics here can
vote on church policies, if reform voices here can be part of the process in an
official way, why can that not happen in other nations?
In that respect, I think this is a potentially historic
precedent for how conversations about the future of the church should be
handled, Weisner said.
Deep sense of crisis
The Dialogue for Austria grew out of a deep sense of crisis in the
Austrian church following the resignation of the immensely popular Cardinal
Franz König of Vienna in 1986. Since then several developments have left
many Catholics embittered: a sex scandal involving his successor, Hans
Groër; John Pauls appointment of several deeply unpopular
conservative bishops; polarization in the bishops conference and a steady
exodus out of the church.
The Groër affair has dragged on -- just three weeks ago,
Groër performed a baptism in Austria in full cardinals regalia,
despite a public pledge never to appear in Austria as a cardinal again. As an
apparent result, the demand for reform has become more and more insistent.
In 1996, the Austrian bishops proposed a national dialogue as a
way to heal these wounds. Initially, it seemed many bishops hoped to ignore
demands for internal reform. The original working document made no mention of
the issues from the Volks-begehren, and the bishops did not issue an invitation
to We Are Church members to take part. Both decisions produced intense public
criticism, and the bishops eventually reversed course.
Over the past year, delegates were selected for the Dialogue from
each of Austrias nine provinces and various lay and clerical
organizations. The tone was set on Saturday morning when officials of the
bishops conference handed out a draft of the concluding statement for the
entire event and invited comment. The draft spoke only in generalities and said
no concrete results could be expected. By the time the delegates
met in their plenary session, anger over the draft had become so apparent that
the presiding officer told them it would be tossed out. Much applause and
rapping of tables -- a sign of approval -- greeted the announcement.
In a ringing show of support for retired Bishop Reinhold Stecher
of Innsbruck, 225 of the 260 delegates voted for a resolution calling for
including resigned priests in all areas of church life and for speedier action
on their requests for laicization in Rome -- the very points Stecher made in a
widely published letter in December 1997.
The only real floor fight erupted over celibacy. The small group
charged with the matter approved a resolution calling for the ordination of
so-called viri probati, or tested married men, but not for
making the celibacy requirement optional altogether. A resolution calling for
optional celibacy came out of the group only as a minority report and, despite
extensive wrangling, was never allowed on the floor for a vote.
Plankensteiner saw the outcome as basically positive for the
reformers. If we have the viri probati, he said,
sooner or later the question of when they can marry will become
unimportant.
The relatively free exchange among laity, clergy and bishops
during the floor debates produced some remarkable moments. At one point a
leader of the conservative forces here, Matthaus Thun-Hohenstein, rose to
defend the magisterium. He read from a letter written by the leader of the
Austrian Lutherans in the late 1930s welcoming Hitler. Thun-Hohenstein then
asserted that the pope had preserved the Austrians from similar errors.
Catcalls echoed around the chamber as delegates recalled Cardinal
Theodor Innitzer of Vienna, who had welcomed union with the Nazis as the
oldest dream of the German state. The next speaker rose and requested
10 minutes with Mr. Thun-Hohenstein so I may express my anger.
During the discussion on birth control and sexual morality, three
bishops -- Klaus Küng of Feldkirch, a member of Opus Dei; George Eder,
archbishop of Salzburg; and Andreas Laun, auxiliary bishop of Salzburg; rose to
oppose the report of the working group.
Eder said that truth and love cannot be placed against each
other. Laun declared the report in all points contradicts the
teaching of the church. We cannot follow pastoral advice, he warned,
if it goes the wrong way.
Küng first echoed Laun saying, What is against the
magisterium cannot be accepted. Then Küng -- former head of Opus Dei
in Austria before being appointed to Feldkirch, where his nomination was so
unpopular that people actually lined the path to the cathedral with their
bodies during his ordination ceremony -- accused the delegates of dismissing
the magisterium as unimportant. When a bell rang signaling that his time to
speak had come to an end, Küng testily said, Bishops must be allowed
to speak what they want.
The assembly listened politely, then voted by more than a
three-quarters margin to adopt each of the three points in the report their
shepherds had just opposed.
A member of the Feldkirch diocese rose to address Küng
specifically. What I want to ask you is why were you so positive
yesterday in our small group? Everything sounded different then. Yesterday you
affirmed the importance of conscience in the matter of contraception. Where is
that today?
I ask you, my friend Klaus, do not forget what you said
yesterday. Another round of rapping on the tables accompanied the
statement.
No stronger than its arguments
Küng barely had time to recover when another speaker rose,
this one an elderly priest who has served as a pastor in a small Austrian
parish for more than 20 years. After saying that his practice has always been
to give people the sacraments whatever their views on contraception or whatever
their marital status, he stared at Küng and said, Bishop Küng,
the magisterium must explain its arguments. The magisterium is no stronger than
the weight of its arguments.
Clearly cowed, Küng on Monday morning asked Weber, whose
affability and moderate stance on the key issues makes him quite popular, to
apologize on his behalf for demanding more time to speak. For Küng, with a
reputation of having ice water in his veins, it was a remarkable gesture.
Other bishops, however, were less willing to treat discretion as
the better part of valor. During a Monday morning floor speech, Kurt Krenn of
Sankt Pölten said, Some of the propositions dont correspond
with the teaching of the church. We must examine the wording. The bishops did
not participate in the votes, and well have to look at everything. I
would not be serious if I said I will go to Rome and say we agree with all of
it.
Before the event ended, conservatives were hinting that the
Dialogue for Austria was not really representative of the national church.
Is this really what the Catholics of Austria think? It depends on how
well-elected the delegates are. You cant really say they effectively
represent the thinking of the Catholics of Austria, Archbishop George
Eder told NCR.
Its almost impossible for it to be really
representative, if you just consider that for the diocese of Salzburg there are
19 people. How can you ever represent all the groups in the diocese with 19
people.
At his news conference, Weber, the bishop of Graz-Seckau, seemed
to undercut this criticism. It was a highly qualified group from all of
Austria, he said. I am convinced it was a very good mirror of
Austria. I do not think we can ignore what was said here.
Observers said conservative bishops remarks about how the
group was not representative were especially ironic given that the bishops
themselves had responsibility for naming the vast majority of delegates.
One Austrian journalist said, If anything, the conservatives
were the ones overrepresented here. Plankensteiner, though careful to be
gracious in his post-event news conference, also pointed out that some of the
speakers in favor of reform positions were from Krenns diocese of Sankt
Pölten.
One speaker raised the issue of how representative the assembly
was in another way, suggesting the group was top-heavy with church employees.
Not enough simple people were present, he said.
Krenn picked up on the way in which the propositions were phrased,
asking delegates what they thought was important, suggesting the
votes were not really for change but simply for more conversation about change.
Its important, huh? Well, good, its important.
To me that only means that its important to talk about what the teaching
of the church is in this area, Krenn said. It doesnt mean
that so and so many have said its right.
Despite such talk, most delegates seemed to believe that a real
breakthrough had occurred in the life of their church. Weber seemed to sum up
their sentiments in an interview with Die Presse, the leading daily newspaper
in Vienna. Austria is something of an incubator, he said. We
are right now experiencing the birth pangs of a new form of the church. I am
convinced the baby will be healthy.
This story was reported with assistance from Hubert
Feichtlbauer.
National Catholic Reporter, November 6,
1998
|