Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Bullshit from a Cardinal

Cardinal Schönborn said that he had initially intended to uphold the priest’s decision--but then, he said, “I ask myself in these situations: How did Jesus act? He first saw the human being.” Calling his decision “a decision for human beings,” the cardinal recounted that he invited Stangl and his partner to lunch and understood “why the community had given him the most votes, because he is really impressive.” “This man is at the right place,” the cardinal said of Stangl.
From here. Did the cardinal, at any point, happen to tell him "You know, sodomy is sinful. I sure hope you're not engaging in that."? Was that something Christ was known for? Turning a blind eye to open, defiant sin? Yes, cardinal, Christ would see the human. Why, he may even allow the man to serve on the council - AFTER the man repented of his sin. Christ wouldn't have ignored that sin. And He certainly wouldn't have preened about how holy and pure His actions were, as the cardinal so implied.

15 comments:

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

Say what he will about the other fellow, but the Cardinal himself is way out of place. A cardinal sin, so to speak, gets a cardinal pardon. Such a contrast to the CDF document on homosexuality I just read and posted today. Another lash on our Lord's Body, just in time for Holy Week.

Syllabus said...

Maybe it's 'cause I'm not a Catholic, but I think that we're on shaky ground whenever we say, "Jesus would have done such-and-such!" It seems to me that we're simply not in a very good position to extrapolate those kinds of things. We can, in any case, make almost any case for or against something from a Biblical perspective without going that route.

Crude said...

I dislike the "I did what Jesus would have done!" thing because it's presumptuous and showy. I can accept someone saying, "Look, I was trying to do what I think Christ would have done. This is what I did, and here's why." I can't accept, "I thought, what would Christ do? And then I knew what Christ would do. So I did that."

I get the impression this is an extremely popular move with the theologically and particularly politically liberal. Say "Jesus would have done this", then head for the hills before someone asks you to explain yourself.

And the Cardinal was way out of place, yes. And he gives off the vibe - if that article was reported fully and accurately - that he's playing to the crowd. I recall he also defended some kind of homosexual-propaganda artwork on display in a church previously. What a surprise.

Syllabus said...

I don't know, man. In my experience, that's as much a conservative move as a liberal one. I don't think that Christ ought to be co-opted for any socio-political stance, and for as few religious stances that aren't directly relevant to Him as possible (which, granted, is a very small amount, but a real one). This is one of the reasons why I don't think that religious leaders ought to weigh in on most political and some social issues as Christians or whatever. Their views are, in many cases, so skewed by their nationalism or their social justice causes or whatever that they'll inevitably speak from that sort of mindset. Besides, I'm not sure that we can speak to non-Christians about peculiarly Christian issues and expect any sort of authority, since they don't share our presuppositions.

My political opinions are so off-the-wall that I can't accurately describe myself a liberal or a conservative (though I do sympathize more with the conservatives than with the liberals), so I tend to take a critical eye towards both sides. So yeah, it's a move made by both sides.

Crude said...

I think the 'This is the Christian thing to do' move is made by both sides, absolutely. But specifically, the "I did what Christ would have done" or "Christ would have done X" move... my recollection is simply, I see that move made by political liberals more. I think when the self-described conservatives make the move, they tend to talk in terms of sin, or biblical reference.

I suppose both moves co-opt Christ broadly, but the language and approach differs.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

It's not like this a one-off for cardinals either. Look at Martini's recent published rejection of the Church's teaching on homosexual acts. And then there's Levada's longstanding velvet accommodationism. Indeed, much of the abuse scandal was based on high clerics giving a pass to what were plainly homosexual deviants hiding in Roman collars, which is to say, in plain sight. Schönborn's accommodation is just the latest and most self-conscious symptom of a much, much deeper rot. Cf. the Randy Engels book about what is effectively a cult of sodomy in the Church. St. Peter Damian, ora pro nobis!

Crude said...

One thing that pisses me off about that scandal is how it gets played up as 'Clergy trying to protect the Church.' It really looks an awful lot like, in many cases, 'Liberal clergy, watching each other's backs.'

But ah well. There's been corrupt jackasses to deal with since the Apostles themselves. We have to actually speak out against them, though. Frankly, I wasn't very impressed with the recent 'lesbian denied communion, poor girl' reaction from the higher ups with that poor priest, and everyone saying 'We should be silent, he was out of line if you turn your head sideways and look at Canon 905 in the dark while squinting.'

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

I know, seriously, I thought the priest was awesome for DOING that. How many priests dream of doing that? My dad's pastor was known for preventing people from partaking, if they were dressed obscenely, had car keys in their hands, had a blatantly disrespectful demeanor, etc. Granted, it was a cathedral in downtown Jacksonville, right up from the bus station and a few homeless shelters, so they were constantly used to getting alkies and beggars looking for a snack or just something to do, so the pastor had a context for it.

As for the velvet mafia, the liberal passes given by the cover-ups were very much the gist of my post a while back about "the therapeutic stance". Cases like the lesbian denial case vs. Schönborn's latitudinarianism shows there's an objective difference in handling sexual indiscretion when it comes to conservative vs. liberal clergy. Multiply that difference by hundreds over decades, and you've got a scandal.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

Well well well! A little how's your father for some dissident Austrians. Notice that the ringleader, Schueller, was a deputy of... Wait for it ... Schoenborn!

http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/pope-reaffirms-ban-women-priests-assails-disobedience-115423504.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us

Crude said...

What does "how's your father" mean?

Typical liberal antics. I'll never forget how, when the sex scandals first broke, that jackass New York cardinal's desperate move to save himself was to suggest that the problem could be addressed with exploring married and (I think) female clergy 'options'.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

It's British for sticking it to somebody.

Ilíon said...

Hmmmm

Crude said...

Bwahaha. You think this is news to me, Ilion? That we have shitty cardinals making shitty decisions for shitty reasons? (Note: Schonborn probably isn't all bad, but on the gay issue he clearly seems to make bad decisions.)

As I said above, we've had to deal with corrupt jackasses since *the apostles themselves*.

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

Or as St. John Chrysostom is alleged to have said, "The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops." http://ncronline.org/news/people/invitation-lunch-pastoral-theology

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

Pastor resigns, good for him.
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/blog-san-pietro-e-dintorni-en/detail/articolo/viennaschoenborn-gay-same-sex-14258/h

Schönborn preaches on the matter:

http://sancrucensis.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/cardinal-schonborn-some-of-you-feel-abandoned-by-your-bishop/