ceremony in Rome in full regalia. No condemnation of Hermann Groër occurred before his death in March 2003. But it was clear that Schönborn’s public criticism of Cardinal Sodano and his moderate comments on priestly celibacy and homosexuality had provoked more ire in the Vatican than the misdeeds of Groër. At all events, Cardinal Schönborn was ordered to Rome, and, in Austria, his trip was generally interpreted as an act of self-abasement. After a private talk between the four of them (Cardinal Secretary of State Bertone had also been invited), a press statement was issued expressing no criticism of Sodano whatsoever but culminating instead in the assertion that criticizing the behaviour of cardinals was solely within the purview of the pope. Why? And since when? Clearly, ‘reasons of state’, or better ‘reasons of the Church hierarchy’, were behind this unprecedented humiliation of the Archbishop of Vienna. Whether, as the press release suggested, Benedict’s ‘great affection’ for Austria and his invocation of the ‘heavenly protection of the Virgin Mary, so highly venerated in Mariazell’ would pave ‘the way for a renewal of the Church community’ is more than questionable. Nevertheless, the mere fact that Cardinal Schönborn had dared to voice such open criticism of one of the most powerful men within the Roman Curia was viewed positively in Austria.
The Fifth Fever Attack: The Flurry of Excitement about Condoms
A long interview given by Benedict XVI to his favourite German reporter, Peter Seewald, and published as a book under the title Light of the World, caused a considerable stir. In the interview, the pope admitted, for the first time, that in the battle against AIDS the use of condoms might be permissible under certain circumstances. Of course, a pope can make his opinion known in interviews, but whether such a delicate and intimate issue should be treated in this informal manner is debatable. Initially it was unclear how authoritative such an interview was. Its prior publication in Osservatore Romano (even before the press release embargo date had expired!) was clearly part of a carefully directed, widespread publicity campaign, and the result was international media frenzy. A heated discussion immediately erupted as to whether this pronouncement by the pope represented a policy change or not. In reality, it was both. After Pope Benedict, during his trip to Africa, had branded the use of condoms as unconditionally immoral, he appeared, to all intents and purposes, to have changed his mind, at least with regard to male homosexuals. Nevertheless, that effectively amounted to a belated admission that it was no longer possible to uphold the previously rigid doctrine on artificial techniques of birth control. The pope knew that even some otherwise conservative Catholics, including bishops and theologians, and, even more importantly, certain Church organizations involved in providing aid to the developing world, rejected the Church’s rigid prohibition of condoms, and that the irrational Vatican policy was making the Church look ridiculous all over the world. Thus, the pope’s statement was mainly a tactical manoeuvre and did not represent a fundamental change. Limiting the ethical concession to male prostitutes constituted an affront to all married couples and particularly to women, who are the principal victims of the spread of AIDS in Africa.
A truly fundamental reversal of the Church’s previously held position would have occurred if Benedict had not limited his casuistic response to male prostitutes but instead had given a fundamental answer to the question being asked by millions of heterosexual married couples, namely whether the Roman Magisterium no longer considers every form of ‘artificial’ birth control intrinsically evil. There is nothing on this topic in the Bible. In reality, the idea derives from a false understanding of natural law, assuming that every act of sexual intercourse must always be directed towards propagating the species. Clearly, the then pope intended to continue to adhere to the position set forth in Paul VI’s controversial encyclical Humanae vitae. And so he got caught in the infallibility trap, a trap that needs to be discussed openly and honestly. The provisional result of this obfuscation was formulated by the International Herald Tribune in an article under the headline ‘Confusion, not clarity from Pope’ (23 November 2010). Paradoxically, this confusion was confirmed four weeks later by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith itself in a statement that attempted to pour oil on the troubled waters stirred up by its former prefect by publishing, just before Christmas, a memorandum in six languages entitled ‘On the Trivialization of Sexuality’. According to the memorandum, Benedict’s comment on the permissibility of using condoms was in no way intended to be understood as implying the principle (otherwise well-established in ethics) that a lesser evil should be balanced against a greater one. What a pity.
Perhaps an end to reports of such fever attacks might indicate a drop in the severity of the illness affecting the Church; unfortunately, however, it looks as though there will be no end to such reports. How then should we react?
Seven Reactions to the Illness of the Church
Every Christian, man or woman, and, all the more, every theologian, needs to face this question. Millions of Catholics do not agree with or approve of the course charted by the Church. In all, I identify seven different reactions to the current situation, but I consider the first four of them to be out of the question:
1. One can leave the Church, as tens of thousands of people have done because of the scandalous revelations. As I mentioned previously, the figures for Germany were around 250,000, and in Austria (based on a projection by Cardinal Schönborn) the numbers were approximately 80,000.
2. One can create a schism within the Church by seceding together with a group of other people, as the reactionary former archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (excommunicated in 1988) did with his traditionalist Fraternity of St Pius X. However, it should be noted that not a single reform-minded group has done this to date.
3. One can retreat into a state of inner emigration and remain silent. Many previously reform-minded persons have done this; giving up in frustration, they remain in the Church, but cease to be involved: ‘It is all to no avail, the system simply cannot be reformed!’ And so, everywhere, fewer and fewer high-profile people are prepared to offer resistance.
4. One can outwardly conform but privately hold dissenting opinions. This is the path pursued by people who are willing outwardly, at least, to toe the prevailing line whatever direction it takes. In particular, it is the course taken by conformist politicians, who place great store on maintaining good relationships with the institutional Church and enjoy sitting in the first row at church conventions and papal appearances, and who flatter the church hierarchy outwardly but voice their objections to official doctrines or ethics only in private or not at all.
But three other reactions are also observable, all of which I consider to be important and helpful:
5. One can get involved in the local church community and work together with the local pastor and others, disregarding the popes and bishops. Alternatively, as increasing numbers of men and women who want to remain involved are doing, one can take over, officially or unofficially, some of the tasks of the absent priests.
6. One can protest publicly, and vigorously demand reforms on the part of the ecclesiastical leadership. Unfortunately, the number of involved people who are willing to criticize the Church openly in this way has been dropping continually in the face of the massive resistance offered by the Roman Catholic establishment. Even the organized reform movements now suffer from a shortage of active supporters and especially from the lack of young people willing to get involved.
7. One can study the situation academically and publish the findings, hoping that these publications will inspire and guide individual church members and communities. That is what those theologians are doing who have not simply given up in despair or retreated to their comfortable academic ivory towers, but instead continue to take seriously their responsibilities as teachers (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:28 ff.). This is where I see my own special duty as a teacher of theology.
No less important, however, is the question: how have the bishops reacted to the situation?
Bishops Prepared to Enter into a Dialogue
In December 2010, a specially commissioned report on the archbishopric of Munich and Freising – a former workplace of the seminarian, priest, professor and bishop, Joseph Ratzinger – concluded that between