Viennese Whirl

His eminence Christoph Maria Michael Hugo Damian Peter Adalbert Cardinal Graf von Schönborn, the third to be created Cardinal in his aristocratic family, is a man with an unenviable job to which he needs to bring all the diplomatic skills he can find in his armoury.

For a start, his two immediate predecessors hardly left him a smooth playing-field. The late (and some would say great) Cardinal König was one of the powerful liberal champions at Vatican II and continued to favour the cause with intelligence and vigour until his death in 2004 at the advanced age of 98, having governed the diocese of Vienna from 1956 until 1985. He was a great champion of Ostpolitik, the policy of detente with the Communist East, and this led him to welcome the election of Pope John Paul II, something he was later to regret when it became apparent to him that liberalism was going to be increasingly placed on the defensive. He became increasingly critical, even while in office, of the Pope, for, as he was said to see it, turning his back on the Council. He continued until his death to subscribe to The Tablet and correspond there. To his annoyance, his favoured candidate was not selected to succeed him; instead was chosen the disastrous Hans Hermann Groer, a man who was said by one writer (Hubertus Czernin, Das Buch Groer) to have abused up to two thousand young men.

Improbable as that figure might sound, people seem prepared to believe it, and so Groer is understandably now a focus of ecclesiastical hatred in Austria, and his perceived conservatism served only to persuade more to the other side, remembering the 'good old days' of Cardinal König, who remained alive throughout Groer's tenure of the office and this fact alone no doubt made life no easier for his successor. Rumours still abound in Vienna of Groer's partiality for women's clothing and handsome young men; whatever the truth may be (and to the end Groer denied everything) his memory is a painful one. A couple of years ago Cardinal Schönborn let slip (in the way he does) that the then Cardinal Ratzinger had wanted to have a proper investigation of the Groer scandal, but Cardinal Sodano used his influence with Pope John Paul to prevent it.

Schönborn followed an academic career, studying in the 1970s under Professor Ratzinger at Regensburg, his scholarly work culminating in his crucial role in the preparation of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church. In some ways the publication of the Catechism was a turning point in the history of the Church; although certain people believe it to be theologically deficient (from one perspective or its diametrical opposite), the overwhelming majority consider it a welcome restatement of the Catholic faith for the modern era. The English-speaking world has particular reason to be grateful to Schönborn for his assistance in ensuring that the new Catechism would not employ politically-correct language, but would rather seek to be accurate in the first place. This was almost the beginning of the fight-back that was to culminate in the publication of the 2011 Roman Missal which, for all its faults, is such an improvement on its predecessor.

It was not surprising that Schönborn became a bishop; he was consecrated in Rome in 1991, and appointed coadjutor of Vienna in 1995 in the shadow of the Groer debacle, succeeding to the see in the same year.

This is where it gets sticky. I think that Schönborn has had the most difficult innings of any Archbishop of Vienna, and quite possibly of any Western European see in the last couple of centuries.* The memory of Cardinal König and the contrasting example of Cardinal Groer served to give extraordinary impetus to the liberal cause in Austria. Schönborn in his pontificate has had to ride the bronco and try to hold together and if possible pacify a church threatening imminent melt-down. In order to do so he has had to be all things to all men; this is a very difficult thing to achieve. My experience is partial, but I have to acknowledge that although you will find him attacked from all sides on the internet (participating in a strange liturgical goings-on here, known to be in the intimate circle of the Pope there), those whom I have met who actually know him acknowledge the greatest respect for him—and these include a (very) liberal parish priest in Vienna and some (very) conservative Religious. And, more to the point, both parties are convinced he is on their side. In fact, I'm sure that the fingers of some readers may already be twitching to identify in the comments box this or that dreadful event at which Schönborn was present. **

Now, this might be duplicity, of course, but it might also be simple aristocratic diplomacy and good nature. It is the nature of the products of posh schools to be at ease in company, to speak to high and low alike with equal affability. And, simply, he seems to be a nice man.

He also seems to have some good ideas. Last week I met one of his seminarians; this young man had the highest regard for his Archbishop, who visits the Seminary almost every week, and makes it a kind of home from home. Each year he, personally, takes his seminarians on holiday for a fortnight, and in his company they have had access to remarkable sights and places. In other words, he understands what so many do not, that the relationship that a bishop has with his priests is a vital one, and if this present crisis in the Austrian Church can only be healed by personal charm, well that is better than schism. The Church has used it in the past to great effect (I think of Cardinal Consalvi after the Congress of Vienna) and it might serve well now.

We are all well aware of that group of priests in Austria who want to revolutionize the Church right now. I was interested to read in this week's Tablet that Schönborn seems to have negotiated their demands down to near-moderation. He seems to have made them feel heard and valued and all those other things, and to be well on the way to defusing a potentially highly explosive situation.

Which is all to say that though I have said in the past that what the Church really needs is passionate defenders of the faith, sometimes diplomats have their role, too.

* Well, okay, I suppose that the Archbishop of Paris who was murdered during the communes might have found things more difficult. And many of the Spanish hierarchy in the 1930s. and…………Look, permit me a little artistic licence!
** And there is his puzzling attitude to the business at Medugorje. I can't account for that.

500

The debate raging in the Irish Church brings me little surprise.

It is my honest belief that the episcopate and the presbyterate in Ireland have been riding for a fall for perhaps half a century, perhaps longer.

I remember a funeral luncheon for an uncle of mine. It was on a Monday; the funeral had been exceptionally deferred from the traditional third day after death to enable me to attend and officiate. I was sat next to the parish priest—actually the Vicar General of the diocese, now deceased—and listened with scant sympathy as he grumbled about his extremely busy weekend. He lamented that that Sunday he had had to celebrate Mass twice, imagine!, and now with this lunch to attend, it might be another hour or two before he could get off to the golf course.

I quietly commented that I had had a relatively easy weekend, with only three Masses on the Sunday and five baptisms (admittedly done in one ceremony), plus the flight to Ireland.

The town is a big one (by Irish standards), with an enormous church (by any standards). In those days (no longer!) there were four priests, and the entire town could be squeezed into the church for four Masses, no more. And all four on Sunday morning. As far as I could work out, there was no pastoral work of any sort done which was not celebrating Mass. There were no youth clubs, no sacramental preparation other than that done in the schools, no care of people because that was the government's job…… you get the picture.

Money, now: that was collected regularly. Giving at Mass has never been good, so there were, and are, 'outside collections' of various types. When my father was young, the names and amounts contributed of all these collections was solemnly read out at Mass.

The only half decent cars in those days were driven by priests.

One place you would regularly see the clergy was at the GAA, the Gælic Athletic Association. The sports pages of the local papers would be covered with photographs of the Parish Priest presenting trophies to the various local sporting gods of the town.

It is little wonder that the same uncle that I buried that day had been disgusted when he heard I wanted to be a priest. He assumed that it was for money and status. He had thought that I was better than that. Though in the past we had been close, he wrote me out of his will, and, a widower having no children himself, he left everything to neighbours. This was some eighteen years ago.

Do not underestimate the anger of the Irish people right now. In the context, it is entirely understandable.

Now let us look at the bishops. Before the 60s, it was normal that episcopal appointments would be finally approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (or 'Holy Office'). Pope Paul Vi changed this to final approval by the Secretariate of State. This is because he wanted to pursue a policy of detente all round; ecumenism and Ostpolitik were the watchwords. So henceforward bishops would be diplomats; nice guys, people who could pour oil on troubled waters, men who would not rock the boat.

These are the men who would not pursue child abusers, for fear that a storm might arise. They are good men, nice men; they are just not what is needed now, if ever.

There has been criticism of the '500' priests. There is much I disagree with them about; however, I think that they are men of integrity who don't always actually understand what is going on.

They are right that the Vatican is not appointing the right men to be bishops in Ireland (with some exceptions). And they are right that serious surgery needs to happen if things are to be rectified. If the Vatican does not hear that the Irish people are seriously angry and need to see justice done, it will not recover the trust of what has been until recently one of the most Catholic nations on earth. Expressions of sorrow on the part of the bishops are not enough; these can be dismissed easily as crocodile tears.

Questions of the new translation of the Mass are entirely secondary right now. Ireland needs bishops of unimpeachable integrity and orthodoxy, and it needs them yesterday.

The Taoiseach's speech had a lot of this anger in it. The reference to the confessional speaks more about clerical unaccountability than demonstrating a real understanding of the issues. People need to grasp that before they get worried that Ireland will place police microphones in every confessional. 

Horses for Courses

Ann Widdecombe (proposed as the UK ambassador to the Holy See) is a really good thing; she has talents in abundance. Her former parish priest, a seminary classmate of mine (and someone more inclined to vote Labour), was lyrical in her praise.

Let me make an analogy: in the past, when the Holy Office was the senior congregation in Rome, it had the final say on bishops' appointments. As a consequence, we got characterful defenders of the faith. Ann Widdecombes, in fact, mutatis mutandis.

Paul VI changed all that; now the Secretariat of State is at the top, and it has the final say. As a consequence, we have nice guys as bishops, with all that implies.

Bishops need to be episcopal.

Diplomats need to be diplomatic.

Nuff said.