‘Iron curtain’ of religious persecution must end, says US religious freedom rep

China Catholics
Liu Ande, 62, prays during Sunday Mass at the official Catholic Church in Yingtan.Reuters

The US’ religious freedom ambassador Sam Brownback made an impassioned plea to people of faith on Tuesday to fight for their liberties and those of others suffering for their faith worldwide.

He was speaking at the State Department’s Second Annual Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom, which has brought around 1,000 leaders from religious and civic groups to Washington DC this week.

Brownback called on them to be a part of a new “global grassroots movement” to advance religious liberty as he said that the “iron curtain” of persecution needed to “come down now”, the Catholic News Agency reports.

“We need your activism. We need your passion. We need you to boldly fight for religious freedom,” he told them. “As united we do stand, divided we fall – and often we fall in catastrophic, and sometimes even genocidal, ways.”

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was also present at the summit and echoed the call from Brownback by asking those in attendance to get the ball rolling by forming “religious freedom roundtables” in their own countries.

“All people must be permitted to practise their faith openly,” he said.

In comments made ahead of the ministerial to Religion News Service, Brownback singled out China and Iran for particular criticism.

“The Chinese have been pushing back on this area; the Iranians have no remorse or thought that what (they are) doing to the Baha’is or Jews or Christians is wrong,” he said.

“And so we thought while we’re trying to build a movement we need to get as many like-mindeds on board as we can.”

He said he wanted to see people of faith support each other.

“We’re trying to get religions to stand for each other,” he said. “A religion that’s a majority someplace is a minority someplace else, and you need to stand up for each other’s fundamental right to have religious freedom.”

Source: christiantoday.com


YouTube star ‘Ninja’ says doctors urged parents to abort him, thanks mom for choosing life

One of the world’s most famous gamers, Tyler “Ninja” Blevins, revealed — while streaming “Fortnite” on Twitch — that his mom chose life after doctors were pressuring her to get an abortion.

Ninja, who has more than 14 million followers on Twitch and over 22 million on YouTube and reportedly made $10 million last year, surprised his viewers on his 28th birthday, telling them about his birth story and how grateful he is for his mom’s choice, according to Live Action.

‘BREAKTHROUGH’ CLIP: FILMING WHEN ‘MIRACLE’ BOY COMES BACK TO LIFE ‘GAVE ME GOOSEBUMPS’

“Those of you guys who don’t know, I was not supposed to be born, essentially,” Ninja said in a June 5 video, which was posted by pro-life activist Jason Jones.

Jones said he found out about the video after his son told him about it.

“A lot of the doctors told my mom that I had spina bifida or Down syndrome or a number of diseases and that I should be aborted,” he said.

The most famous online streamer said his mom said “no” to all the doctors until she found one that was on board.

“I was born,” the youngest brother of three shared. “Nothing wrong with me. My mom is a saint and an angel and I love her to death.

PREGNANT WOMAN CHANGES MIND MID-ABORTION AND DID THIS TO SAVE HER TWINS

Before signing off and thanking his followers for the birthday wishes, Ninja said: “And it’s one of those things where had she listened to one of those doctors or even one of those people, you guys wouldn’t be here. No one would be in this room.”

Ninja, who is married to his manager, Jessica Goch, was surprised by his mom during a “Sports Center” special on Mother’s Day, after he wrote a letter and was recording a video message for her.

“You always taught me that God has a plan, and for that I thank you so much and I love you so much for that,” he shared. Then his mom surprised him and the two hugged and cried together. “Mom, all I want to do is keep being the man you raised me to be and bring as much joy into other people’s lives as you do into others every day.”

MOTHER OF SON WITH DOWN SYNDROME SUES HOSPITAL, WOULD’VE HAD ABORTION

His mom, Cynthia Blevins, told him: “I love you son. I’m so proud of you.”

A British mother of a son with Down syndrome is suing the National Health Service in a “wrongful birth” case, alleging they denied her the prenatal test to find out if her child would have it and, if so, she would’ve aborted him.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Other celebrities who have said their mothers chose life include Jack Nicholson, Nick Cannon, Nicki Minaj, Justin Bieber, and Eminem.

Source: foxnews.com


Vatican issues document on challenges of ‘gender ideology’ to Catholic education

Pope Francis takes part in a global live video conference at the headquarters of the Pontifical Foundation for Education “Scholas Occurrentes” in Rome Thursday, March 21, 2019, during the launch of the international computer science peace project “Planning for Peace”. (Credit: Andreas Solaro/Pool Photo via AP.)

ROME – In light of changing definitions of love and sexuality fueled by “gender theory,” the Vatican on Monday released a new document looking into issues such as “third sex,” transgenderism, and polyamory.

The document was released by the Congregation for Catholic Education and discussed the response Catholic schools should have to the changing societal landscape.

Titled Male and Female He Created Them: Towards a path of dialogue on the question of gender in education, the document is in many ways a compilation of several remarks given by Pope Francis, who has often expressed his concern over the impact gender ideology has on children.

The 30-page document begins with three quotes from the last three popes: Pope Francis, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI and St. John Paul II.

In Francis’s words, gender theory “denies the difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman and envisages a society without sexual differences, thereby eliminating the anthropological basis of the family.”

This ideology, the quote continues, “leads to educational programs and legislative enactments that promote a personal identity and emotional intimacy radically separated from the biological difference between male and female. Consequently, human identity becomes the choice of the individual, one which can also change over time.”

The Argentine pope has often spoken against this ideology, saying that it harms children and that it’s an attack against the family.

The document, signed by Cardinal Giuseppe Versaldi on Feb. 2, says that “it is becoming increasingly clear that we are now facing what might accurately be called an educational crisis, especially in the field of affectivity and sexuality.” Quoting Benedict, it claims that in many places, educational curricula are being planned and implemented which “allegedly convey a neutral conception of the person and of life, yet in fact reflect an anthropology opposed to faith and to right reason.”

Yet, the document says this issue should not be looked at in isolation from what John Paul II defined as “education in the call to love,” which should offer “a positive and prudent education in sexuality” within the context of the inalienable right of all to receive “an education that is in keeping with their ultimate goal, their ability, their sex, and the culture and tradition of their country, and also in harmony with their fraternal association with other peoples in the fostering of true unity and peace on earth.”

The final quote belongs not to the Polish pontiff, but to the Second Vatican Council Declaration on Christian Education, Gravissimum Educationis.

In an introductory letter, Versaldi said that the idea for it came in 2017, during the congregation’s general assembly, after bishops from around the world expressed their concerns over the growth of gender education in schools.

According to the document, a distinction has to be drawn between gender ideology and the research on gender that human sciences have undertaken.

The ideologies of gender, as Francis has said, also seek “to assert themselves as absolute and unquestionable, even dictating how children should be raised,” precluding dialogue. On the other hand, there’s work on gender which tries instead to “achieve a deeper understanding of the ways in which sexual difference between men and women is lived out in a variety of cultures.”

To the latter, the Catholic Church should be open “to listen, reason and propose.”

The document says in the present cultural context, “it is clear that sex and gender are no longer synonyms or interchangeable concepts, since they are used to describe two different realities.”

“Sex is seen as defining which of the two biological categories? … The problem here does not lie in the distinction between the two terms, which can be interpreted correctly, but in the separation of sex from gender,” it continues.

The separation of sex from gender is at the root of the various “sexual orientations,” the document argues. These are no longer defined by the sexual difference between men and women, but it can “assume other forms, determined solely by the individual.”

Furthermore, the concept of gender depends on the “subjective mindset of each person, “who can choose a gender not corresponding to his or her biological sex, and therefore with the way others see that person (transgenderism).”

The document also says that the duality in male-female couples is seen as a conflict with the idea of “polyamory,” meaning a relationship that involves more than two individuals. This leads to a claim that relationships are not necessarily built to last, and are instead flexible, depending on the desires of the individuals. This has “consequences for the sharing of the responsibilities and obligations inherent in maternity and paternity.”

This redefinition of gender and the plurality of new types of unions are in direct contradiction to the model of marriage as between a man and a woman, which in turn is portrayed as a “vestige of patriarchal societies.”

The ideal pushed forth by this redefinition is that individuals should be allowed to choose their status, and that society should not only guarantee this right but provide material support, “since the minorities involved would otherwise suffer negative social discrimination.”

Despite the clash this theory poses with Catholic education, the document acknowledges that there can be points in common, such as the fact that children should be taught to appreciate the equal dignity of men and women; to respect every person in their particularity and difference, so that no one should suffer bullying, violence, insults or unjust discrimination based on their specific characteristics (such as special needs, race, religion, sexual tendencies); and to appreciate the values of femininity.

Nonetheless, the most “radical forms” of gender theory also create “a gradual process of denaturalization,” giving both sexual identity and family a “liquidity” and “fluidity” that characterize other aspects of post-modern culture, often rooted with a “confused sense of freedom.”

These forms of ideology create educational programs that try to negate the sexual differences between men and women, and confuse freedom with the idea that people can act “arbitrarily as if there were no truths, values and principles to provide guidance, and everything were possible and permissible.”

The document acknowledges that in some cases, sex isn’t clearly defined. But it’s up to medical professionals to make a therapeutic intervention, and it’s not up to parents, or society, to make an arbitrary decision.

Male and Female He Created Them also argues that the process of identifying sexual identity is made more difficult by the “fictitious construct known as ‘gender neuter’ or ‘third gender’” which obscures the fact that “a person’s sex is a structural determinant of male or female identity.”

The ideas of intersex or transgender, the document says, lead to a masculinity or femininity that is ambiguous. In addition, these concepts “presuppose the very sexual difference that they propose to negate or supersede.”

The document also notes that even though gender ideology aims to remove the idea of complementarity between men and women, particularly when it comes to procreation, by proposing alternatives such as in vitro fertilization and surrogacy, at the end of the day, a man and a woman are needed for either process to work.

In keeping with the teachings of the Catholic Church, it also says that children enjoy the right to grow up in a family with a father and a mother.

The document also underlines the primacy of parents in educating their children, which is supplemented by the subsidiary role of schools and the Church. Quoting Francis, it also says that this educational alliance has entered into crisis.

“There is an urgent need to promote a new alliance that is genuine and not simply at the level of bureaucracy, a shared project that can offer a positive and prudent sexual education that can harmonize the primary responsibility of parents with the work of teachers,” the document says.

Follow Inés San Martín on Twitter: @inesanma


 


Taking the life of a child in the womb is not the answer – Not in Alabama or New York, not in Northern Ireland or London

by DAVID ALTON|

WASHINGTON, DC – MAY 21: Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, (D-N.Y) speaks at a pro-choice rally at the Supreme Court on May 21, 2019 in Washington, DC. The Alabama law, signed by Gov. Kay Ivey last week, includes no exceptions for cases of rape and incest, outlawing all abortions except when necessary to prevent serious health problems for the woman. Though women are exempt from criminal and civil liability, the new law punishes doctors for performing an abortion, making the procedure a Class A felony punishable by up to 99 years in prison. (Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

Whilst the Brexit drama continues to unfold, there is a fight underway in the US which, arguably, says far more about a nation and its people than Britain leaving the EU: It is the fight over what protections, if any, a baby in the womb should have in law.

In the wake of the State of Alabama’s decision to pass The Alabama Human Life Protection Act, the abortion issue has hit the headlines once more. The bien pensant were particularly horrified by this piece of legislation – which grants full legal protection to unborn children and effectively outlaws abortion – leading to panic and hysteria in large sections of social media, and a number of celebrity personalities offering some bizarre, threatening, and macabre condemnations.

So before accepting this distorted narrative let’s at least establish and evaluate the  facts.

A woman who has an abortion in Alabama “will not be held criminally culpable or civilly liable for receiving the abortion”, neither will any woman go to prison for having a miscarriage, as has been claimed.

The legislation also rightly stipulates that if the mother’s life is in danger, the premature cessation of pregnancy to save her life remains lawful. Importantly “[t]he term [abortion] does not include: a procedure or act to terminate the pregnancy of a woman with an ectopic pregnancy.” Those who support the right to life of the unborn, including myself, have long recognised the tragedy of an ectopic pregnancy, and have always distinguished this from an abortion insofar as the intention in ending such a pregnancy is not to end the life of the child.

Now contrast this “extreme” legislation with the opposite “extreme” legislation: New York’s Reproductive Health Act.

This legislation, passed in January of this year, did not meet with anything like the same outcry despite its truly radical and dehumanising nature. It establishes abortion as a “fundamental right” essentially making abortion available up to birth.

In the developed world, children born as early as 22 weeks, just over half way through the pregnancy, are able to survive with medical assistance outside of their mother’s womb. And yet the law in New York allows a doctor to end the life of a fully developed baby right up until they are born.

Revealingly, a ComRes poll conducted in 2017 shows the British public favour greater, not fewer, protections for the unborn in law.

70% of women respondents wanted to see a reduction in the upper limit for abortions, which is currently at 24 weeks in the UK (and up to birth where it is thought that the baby might have a disability).

Indeed, 59% of women overall wanted to see the upper limit as low as 16 weeks. By contrast, only a tiny minority (1%) of the general population wanted to see an increase in the time limit through to birth, in all cases, similar to the extreme New York law, a position that has nonetheless been advocated for by many abortion lobby groups here in the UK.

Furthermore, 91% of women support an explicit ban on sex-selective abortion, with only 4% of women against.

If 90% of women don’t want sex selective abortion but if abortion‘s leading cheerleader, Ann Furedi, is right that “you can’t be pro-choice only when you like the choice” then in reality very few people *are* pro-choice.

Nor are parents in the Furedi camp.

70% of parents with children who are 18 or under wanted to see parental consent before a teenage girl undergoes an abortion.

These figures clearly show that there is strong support for changes to our abortion laws in the UK.

Despite this, the pro-abortion lobby are now using the law in Alabama as a springboard to impose abortion on Northern Ireland and some British MPs, once champions of devolution, have apparently turned full circle when it comes to abortion.

When it comes to abortion, the ideologues will not allow other concerns to hold them back.

They are indifferent to the 2016 democratic vote of the Northern Ireland Assembly against a change to its pro-life abortion law.

Nor are they willing to address the “reasonable probability” that “around 100,000 people are alive in Northern Ireland today who would have otherwise been aborted had it been legal to do so”.

Neither are they interested in polling showing that two-thirds of women in Northern Ireland (including 70% of 18-34 year olds) believe that the law on abortion should be a decision for the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives, and not for Westminster.

And then they wonder that political elites are despised by vast swathes of the population.

And what is the ideology that they seek to impose?

Since 1973, when the Federal Government imposed abortion on States which, historically, had always upheld the right to life of their unborn citizens, we have seen a coarsening of conscience leading to a significant political backlash.

What was once thought is now openly and offensively said  – encapsulated by this remark of John Rogers, a member of the Alabama House of Representatives:

“Some kids are unwanted. So you kill them now or you kill them later. You bring them in the world unwanted, unloved, and you send them to the electric chair. So you kill them now or you kill them later.”

Northern Ireland, without laws that elsewhere in the U.K. have led to one abortion every 3 minutes, and with a unique understanding of the consequences of violence, has maintained protections for unborn children in law.  That is to their credit.

While it is true that “some kids are unwanted” and “unloved”, the solution is not to end their lives, now or later. It is to love them now and later. To love them and their mothers. To love them both.

Source: www.thearticle.com


Christian persecution ‘at near genocide levels’

The report comes less than two weeks after bombings at three churches in Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday REUTERS

The persecution of Christians in parts of the world is at near “genocide” levels, according to a report ordered by Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt.

The review, led by the Bishop of Truro the Right Reverend Philip Mounstephen, estimated that one in three people suffer from religious persecution.

Christians were the most persecuted religious group, it found.

Mr Hunt said he felt that “political correctness” had played a part in the issue not being confronted.

The interim report said the main impact of “genocidal acts against Christians is exodus” and that Christianity faced being “wiped out” from parts of the Middle East.

It warned the religion “is at risk of disappearing” in some parts of the world, pointing to figures which claimed Christians in Palestine represent less than 1.5% of the population, while in Iraq they had fallen from 1.5 million before 2003 to less than 120,000.

“Evidence shows not only the geographic spread of anti-Christian persecution, but also its increasing severity,” the Bishop wrote.

Media captionPrince Charles: “It is an indescribable tragedy that Christianity is now under such threat in the Middle East”

“In some regions, the level and nature of persecution is arguably coming close to meeting the international definition of genocide, according to that adopted by the UN.”

The foreign secretary commissioned the review on Boxing Day 2018 amid an outcry over the treatment of Asia Bibi, a Christian woman who faced death threats after being acquitted of blasphemy in Pakistan.

Its findings come after more than 250 people were killed and more than 500 wounded in attacks at hotels and churches in Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday.

Asia BibiImage copyrightHANDOUT
Image captionAsia Bibi’s husband pleaded for asylum from the UK, US or Canada

Mr Hunt, who is on a week-long tour of Africa, said he thought governments had been “asleep” over the persecution of Christians but that this report and the attacks in Sri Lanka had “woken everyone up with an enormous shock”.

He added: “I think there is a misplaced worry that it is somehow colonialist to talk about a religion that was associated with colonial powers rather than the countries that we marched into as colonisers.

‘Atmosphere of political correctness’

“That has perhaps created an awkwardness in talking about this issue – the role of missionaries was always a controversial one and that has, I think, also led some people to shy away from this topic.

“What we have forgotten in that atmosphere of political correctness is actually the Christians that are being persecuted are some of the poorest people on the planet.”

In response to the report, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Marie van der Zyl, said Jews had often been the targets of persecution and felt for Christians who were discriminated against on the basis of their faith.

“Whether it is in authoritarian regimes, or bigotry masked in the mistaken guise of religion, reports like the one launched today remind us that there are many places in which Christians face appalling levels of violence, abuse and harassment,” she said.

The review is due to publish its final findings in the summer.

 

Source: www.bbc.com


Pope Benedict Essay: The Church and the Scandal of Sexual Abuse

(World Meeting of Families 2012/CNA)

VATICAN |  APR. 10, 2019

SPECIAL TO THE REGISTER
Pope Emeritus Benedict

 

On February 21 to 24, at the invitation of Pope Francis, the presidents of the world’s bishops’ conferences gathered at the Vatican to discuss the current crisis of the faith and of the Church; a crisis experienced throughout the world after shocking revelations of clerical abuse perpetrated against minors.

The extent and gravity of the reported incidents has deeply distressed priests as well as laity, and has caused more than a few to call into question the very Faith of the Church. It was necessary to send out a strong message, and seek out a new beginning, so to make the Church again truly credible as a light among peoples and as a force in service against the powers of destruction.

Since I myself had served in a position of responsibility as shepherd of the Church at the time of the public outbreak of the crisis, and during the run-up to it, I had to ask myself – even though, as emeritus, I am no longer directly responsible – what I could contribute to a new beginning.

Thus, after the meeting of the presidents of the bishops’ conferences was announced, I compiled some notes by which I might contribute one or two remarks to assist in this difficult hour.

Having contacted the Secretary of State, Cardinal [Pietro] Parolin and the Holy Father [Pope Francis] himself, it seemed appropriate to publish this text in the Klerusblatt [a monthly periodical for clergy in mostly Bavarian dioceses].

My work is divided into three parts.

In the first part, I aim to present briefly the wider social context of the question, without which the problem cannot be understood. I try to show that in the 1960s an egregious event occurred, on a scale unprecedented in history. It could be said that in the 20 years from 1960 to 1980, the previously normative standards regarding sexuality collapsed entirely, and a new normalcy arose that has by now been the subject of laborious attempts at disruption.

In the second part, I aim to point out the effects of this situation on the formation of priests and on the lives of priests.

Finally, in the third part, I would like to develop some perspectives for a proper response on the part of the Church.

 

I.

(1) The matter begins with the state-prescribed and supported introduction of children and youths into the nature of sexuality. In Germany, the then-Minister of Health, Ms. [Käte] Strobel, had a film made in which everything that had previously not been allowed to be shown publicly, including sexual intercourse, was now shown for the purpose of education. What at first was only intended for the sexual education of young people consequently was widely accepted as a feasible option.

Similar effects were achieved by the “Sexkoffer” published by the Austrian government [A controversial ‘suitcase’ of sex education materials used in Austrian schools in the late 1980s]. Sexual and pornographic movies then became a common occurrence, to the point that they were screened at newsreel theaters [Bahnhofskinos]. I still remember seeing, as I was walking through the city of Regensburg one day, crowds of people lining up in front of a large cinema, something we had previously only seen in times of war, when some special allocation was to be hoped for. I also remember arriving in the city on Good Friday in the year 1970 and seeing all the billboards plastered up with a large poster of two completely naked people in a close embrace.

Among the freedoms that the Revolution of 1968 sought to fight for was this all-out sexual freedom, one which no longer conceded any norms.

The mental collapse was also linked to a propensity for violence. That is why sex films were no longer allowed on airplanes because violence would break out among the small community of passengers. And since the clothing of that time equally provoked aggression, school principals also made attempts at introducing school uniforms with a view to facilitating a climate of learning.

Part of the physiognomy of the Revolution of ’68 was that pedophilia was then also diagnosed as allowed and appropriate.

For the young people in the Church, but not only for them, this was in many ways a very difficult time. I have always wondered how young people in this situation could approach the priesthood and accept it, with all its ramifications. The extensive collapse of the next generation of priests in those years and the very high number of laicizations were a consequence of all these developments.

(2) At the same time, independently of this development, Catholic moral theology suffered a collapse that rendered the Church defenseless against these changes in society. I will try to outline briefly the trajectory of this development.

Until the Second Vatican Council, Catholic moral theology was largely founded on natural law, while Sacred Scripture was only cited for background or substantiation. In the Council’s struggle for a new understanding of Revelation, the natural law option was largely abandoned, and a moral theology based entirely on the Bible was demanded.

I still remember how the Jesuit faculty in Frankfurt trained a highly gifted young Father (Bruno Schüller) with the purpose of developing a morality based entirely on Scripture. Father Schüller’s beautiful dissertation shows a first step towards building a morality based on Scripture. Father Schüller was then sent to America for further studies and came back with the realization that from the Bible alone morality could not be expressed systematically. He then attempted a more pragmatic moral theology, without being able to provide an answer to the crisis of morality.

In the end, it was chiefly the hypothesis that morality was to be exclusively determined by the purposes of human action that prevailed. While the old phrase “the end justifies the means” was not confirmed in this crude form, its way of thinking had become definitive. Consequently, there could no longer be anything that constituted an absolute good, any more than anything fundamentally evil; [there could be] only relative value judgments. There no longer was the [absolute] good, but only the relatively better, contingent on the moment and on circumstances.

The crisis of the justification and presentation of Catholic morality reached dramatic proportions in the late ’80s and ’90s. On January 5, 1989, the “Cologne Declaration,” signed by 15 Catholic professors of theology, was published. It focused on various crisis points in the relationship between the episcopal magisterium and the task of theology. [Reactions to] this text, which at first did not extend beyond the usual level of protests, very rapidly grew into an outcry against the Magisterium of the Church and mustered, audibly and visibly, the global protest potential against the expected doctrinal texts of John Paul II (cf. D. Mieth, Kölner Erklärung, LThK, VI3, p. 196) [LTHK is the Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, a German-language “Lexicon of Theology and the Church,” whose editors included Karl Rahner and Cardinal Walter Kasper.]

Pope John Paul II, who knew very well the situation of moral theology and followed it closely, commissioned work on an encyclical that would set these things right again. It was published under the title “Veritatis splendor” on August 6, 1993, and it triggered vehement backlashes on the part of moral theologians. Before it, the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” already had persuasively presented, in a systematic fashion, morality as proclaimed by the Church.

I shall never forget how then-leading German moral theologian Franz Böckle, who, having returned to his native Switzerland after his retirement, announced in view of the possible decisions of the encyclical “Veritatis splendor” that if the encyclical should determine that there were actions which were always and under all circumstances to be classified as evil, he would challenge it with all the resources at his disposal.

It was God, the Merciful, that spared him from having to put his resolution into practice; Böckle died on July 8, 1991. The encyclical was published on August 6, 1993 and did indeed include the determination that there were actions that can never become good.

The pope was fully aware of the importance of this decision at that moment and for this part of his text, he had once again consulted leading specialists who did not take part in the editing of the encyclical. He knew that he must leave no doubt about the fact that the moral calculus involved in balancing goods must respect a final limit. There are goods that are never subject to trade-offs.

There are values which must never be abandoned for a greater value and even surpass the preservation of physical life. There is martyrdom. God is [about] more than mere physical survival. A life that would be bought by the denial of God, a life that is based on a final lie, is a non-life.

Martyrdom is a basic category of Christian existence. The fact that martyrdom is no longer morally necessary in the theory advocated by Böckle and many others shows that the very essence of Christianity is at stake here.

In moral theology, however, another question had meanwhile become pressing: The hypothesis that the Magisterium of the Church should have final competence (“infallibility”) only in matters concerning the faith itself gained widespread acceptance; (in this view) questions concerning morality should not fall within the scope of infallible decisions of the Magisterium of the Church. There is probably something right about this hypothesis that warrants further discussion. But there is a minimum set of morals which is indissolubly linked to the foundational principle of faith and which must be defended if faith is not to be reduced to a theory but rather to be recognized in its claim to concrete life.

All this makes apparent just how fundamentally the authority of the Church in matters of morality is called into question. Those who deny the Church a final teaching competence in this area force her to remain silent precisely where the boundary between truth and lies is at stake.

Independently of this question, in many circles of moral theology the hypothesis was expounded that the Church does not and cannot have her own morality. The argument being that all moral hypotheses would also know parallels in other religions and therefore a Christian property of morality could not exist. But the question of the unique nature of a biblical morality is not answered by the fact that for every single sentence somewhere, a parallel can also be found in other religions. Rather, it is about the whole of biblical morality, which as such is new and different from its individual parts.

The moral doctrine of Holy Scripture has its uniqueness ultimately predicated in its cleaving to the image of God, in faith in the one God who showed himself in Jesus Christ and who lived as a human being. The Decalogue is an application of the biblical faith in God to human life. The image of God and morality belong together and thus result in the particular change of the Christian attitude towards the world and human life. Moreover, Christianity has been described from the beginning with the word hodós [Greek for a road, in the New Testament often used in the sense of a path of progress].

Faith is a journey and a way of life. In the old Church, the catechumenate was created as a habitat against an increasingly demoralized culture, in which the distinctive and fresh aspects of the Christian way of life were practiced and at the same time protected from the common way of life. I think that even today something like catechumenal communities are necessary so that Christian life can assert itself in its own way.

 

II.

Initial Ecclesial Reactions

(1) The long-prepared and ongoing process of dissolution of the Christian concept of morality was, as I have tried to show, marked by an unprecedented radicalism in the 1960s. This dissolution of the moral teaching authority of the Church necessarily had to have an effect on the diverse areas of the Church. In the context of the meeting of the presidents of the episcopal conferences from all over the world with Pope Francis, the question of priestly life, as well as that of seminaries, is of particular interest. As regards the problem of preparation for priestly ministry in seminaries, there is in fact a far-reaching breakdown of the previous form of this preparation.

In various seminaries homosexual cliques were established, which acted more or less openly and significantly changed the climate in the seminaries. In one seminary in southern Germany, candidates for the priesthood and candidates for the lay ministry of the pastoral specialist [Pastoralreferent] lived together. At the common meals, seminarians and pastoral specialists ate together, the married among the laymen sometimes accompanied by their wives and children, and on occasion by their girlfriends. The climate in this seminary could not provide support for preparation to the priestly vocation. The Holy See knew of such problems, without being informed precisely. As a first step, an Apostolic Visitation was arranged of seminaries in the United States.

As the criteria for the selection and appointment of bishops had also been changed after the Second Vatican Council, the relationship of bishops to their seminaries was very different, too. Above all, a criterion for the appointment of new bishops was now their “conciliarity,” which of course could be understood to mean rather different things.

Indeed, in many parts of the Church, conciliar attitudes were understood to mean having a critical or negative attitude towards the hitherto existing tradition, which was now to be replaced by a new, radically open relationship with the world. One bishop, who had previously been seminary rector, had arranged for the seminarians to be shown pornographic films, allegedly with the intention of thus making them resistant to behavior contrary to the faith.

There were — not only in the United States of America — individual bishops who rejected the Catholic tradition as a whole and sought to bring about a kind of new, modern “Catholicity” in their dioceses. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that in not a few seminaries, students caught reading my books were considered unsuitable for the priesthood. My books were hidden away, like bad literature, and only read under the desk.

The Visitation that now took place brought no new insights, apparently because various powers had joined forces to conceal the true situation. A second Visitation was ordered and brought considerably more insights, but on the whole failed to achieve any outcomes. Nonetheless, since the 1970s the situation in seminaries has generally improved. And yet, only isolated cases of a new strengthening of priestly vocations came about as the overall situation had taken a different turn.

(2) The question of pedophilia, as I recall, did not become acute until the second half of the 1980s. In the meantime, it had already become a public issue in the U.S., such that the bishops in Rome sought help, since canon law, as it is written in the new (1983) Code, did not seem sufficient for taking the necessary measures.

Rome and the Roman canonists at first had difficulty with these concerns; in their opinion the temporary suspension from priestly office had to be sufficient to bring about purification and clarification. This could not be accepted by the American bishops, because the priests thus remained in the service of the bishop, and thereby could be taken to be [still] directly associated with him. Only slowly, a renewal and deepening of the deliberately loosely constructed criminal law of the new Code began to take shape.

In addition, however, there was a fundamental problem in the perception of criminal law. Only so-called guarantorism [a kind of procedural protectionism] was still regarded as “conciliar.” This means that above all the rights of the accused had to be guaranteed, to an extent that factually excluded any conviction at all. As a counterweight against the often-inadequate defense options available to accused theologians, their right to defense by way of guarantorism was extended to such an extent that convictions were hardly possible.

Allow me a brief excursus at this point. In light of the scale of pedophilic misconduct, a word of Jesus has again come to attention which says: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea” (Mark 9:42).

The phrase “the little ones” in the language of Jesus means the common believers who can be confounded in their faith by the intellectual arrogance of those who think they are clever. So here Jesus protects the deposit of the faith with an emphatic threat of punishment to those who do it harm.

The modern use of the sentence is not in itself wrong, but it must not obscure the original meaning. In that meaning, it becomes clear, contrary to any guarantorism, that it is not only the right of the accused that is important and requires a guarantee. Great goods such as the Faith are equally important.

A balanced canon law that corresponds to the whole of Jesus’ message must therefore not only provide a guarantee for the accused, the respect for whom is a legal good. It must also protect the Faith, which is also an important legal asset. A properly formed canon law must therefore contain a double guarantee — legal protection of the accused, legal protection of the good at stake. If today one puts forward this inherently clear conception, one generally falls on deaf ears when it comes to the question of the protection of the Faith as a legal good. In the general awareness of the law, the Faith no longer appears to have the rank of a good requiring protection. This is an alarming situation which must be considered and taken seriously by the pastors of the Church.

 

I would now like to add, to the brief notes on the situation of priestly formation at the time of the public outbreak of the crisis, a few remarks regarding the development of canon law in this matter.

In principle, the Congregation of the Clergy is responsible for dealing with crimes committed by priests. But since guarantorism dominated the situation to a large extent at the time, I agreed with Pope John Paul II that it was appropriate to assign the competence for these offences to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under the title “Delicta maiora contra fidem.

This arrangement also made it possible to impose the maximum penalty, i.e., expulsion from the clergy, which could not have been imposed under other legal provisions. This was not a trick to be able to impose the maximum penalty, but is a consequence of the importance of the Faith for the Church. In fact, it is important to see that such misconduct by clerics ultimately damages the Faith.

Only where Faith no longer determines the actions of man are such offenses possible.

The severity of the punishment, however, also presupposes a clear proof of the offense — this aspect of guarantorism remains in force.

In other words, in order to impose the maximum penalty lawfully, a genuine criminal process is required. But both the dioceses and the Holy See were overwhelmed by such a requirement. We therefore formulated a minimum level of criminal proceedings and left open the possibility that the Holy See itself would take over the trial where the diocese or the metropolitan administration is unable to do so. In each case, the trial would have to be reviewed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in order to guarantee the rights of the accused. Finally, in the Feria IV (i.e., the assembly of the members of the Congregation), we established an appeal instance in order to provide for the possibility of an appeal.

Because all of this actually went beyond the capacities of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and because delays arose which had to be prevented owing to the nature of the matter, Pope Francis has undertaken further reforms.

 

III.

(1) What must be done? Perhaps we should create another Church for things to work out? Well, that experiment has already been undertaken and has already failed. Only obedience and love for our Lord Jesus Christ can point the way. So let us first try to understand anew and from within [ourselves] what the Lord wants, and has wanted with us.

First, I would suggest the following: If we really wanted to summarize very briefly the content of the Faith as laid down in the Bible, we might do so by saying that the Lord has initiated a narrative of love with us and wants to subsume all creation in it. The counterforce against evil, which threatens us and the whole world, can ultimately only consist in our entering into this love. It is the real counterforce against evil. The power of evil arises from our refusal to love God. He who entrusts himself to the love of God is redeemed. Our being not redeemed is a consequence of our inability to love God. Learning to love God is therefore the path of human redemption.

Let us now try to unpack this essential content of God’s revelation a little more. We might then say that the first fundamental gift that Faith offers us is the certainty that God exists.

A world without God can only be a world without meaning. For where, then, does everything that is come from? In any case, it has no spiritual purpose. It is somehow simply there and has neither any goal nor any sense. Then there are no standards of good or evil. Then only what is stronger than the other can assert itself. Power is then the only principle. Truth does not count, it actually does not exist. Only if things have a spiritual reason, are intended and conceived — only if there is a Creator God who is good and wants the good — can the life of man also have meaning.

That there is God as creator and as the measure of all things is first and foremost a primordial need. But a God who would not express Himself at all, who would not make Himself known, would remain an assumption and could thus not determine the form [Gestalt] of our life. For God to be really God in this deliberate creation, we must look to Him to express Himself in some way. He has done so in many ways, but decisively in the call that went to Abraham and gave people in search of God the orientation that leads beyond all expectation: God Himself becomes creature, speaks as man with us human beings.

In this way the sentence “God is” ultimately turns into a truly joyous message, precisely because He is more than understanding, because He creates — and is — love. To once more make people aware of this is the first and fundamental task entrusted to us by the Lord.

A society without God — a society that does not know Him and treats Him as non-existent — is a society that loses its measure. In our day, the catchphrase of God’s death was coined. When God does die in a society, it becomes free, we were assured. In reality, the death of God in a society also means the end of freedom, because what dies is the purpose that provides orientation. And because the compass disappears that points us in the right direction by teaching us to distinguish good from evil. Western society is a society in which God is absent in the public sphere and has nothing left to offer it. And that is why it is a society in which the measure of humanity is increasingly lost. At individual points it becomes suddenly apparent that what is evil and destroys man has become a matter of course.

That is the case with pedophilia. It was theorized only a short time ago as quite legitimate, but it has spread further and further. And now we realize with shock that things are happening to our children and young people that threaten to destroy them. The fact that this could also spread in the Church and among priests ought to disturb us in particular.

Why did pedophilia reach such proportions? Ultimately, the reason is the absence of God. We Christians and priests also prefer not to talk about God, because this speech does not seem to be practical. After the upheaval of the Second World War, we in Germany had still expressly placed our Constitution under the responsibility to God as a guiding principle. Half a century later, it was no longer possible to include responsibility to God as a guiding principle in the European constitution. God is regarded as the party concern of a small group and can no longer stand as the guiding principle for the community as a whole. This decision reflects the situation in the West, where God has become the private affair of a minority.

A paramount task, which must result from the moral upheavals of our time, is that we ourselves once again begin to live by God and unto Him. Above all, we ourselves must learn again to recognize God as the foundation of our life instead of leaving Him aside as a somehow ineffective phrase. I will never forget the warning that the great theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar once wrote to me on one of his letter cards. “Do not presuppose the triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but present them!”

Indeed, in theology God is often taken for granted as a matter of course, but concretely one does not deal with Him. The theme of God seems so unreal, so far removed from the things that concern us. And yet everything becomes different if one does not presuppose but present God. Not somehow leaving Him in the background, but recognizing Him as the center of our thoughts, words and actions.

(2) God became man for us. Man as His creature is so close to His heart that He has united himself with him and has thus entered human history in a very practical way. He speaks with us, He lives with us, He suffers with us and He took death upon Himself for us. We talk about this in detail in theology, with learned words and thoughts. But it is precisely in this way that we run the risk of becoming masters of faith instead of being renewed and mastered by the Faith.

Let us consider this with regard to a central issue, the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. Our handling of the Eucharist can only arouse concern. The Second Vatican Council was rightly focused on returning this sacrament of the Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ, of the Presence of His Person, of His Passion, Death and Resurrection, to the center of Christian life and the very existence of the Church. In part, this really has come about, and we should be most grateful to the Lord for it.

And yet a rather different attitude is prevalent. What predominates is not a new reverence for the presence of Christ’s death and resurrection, but a way of dealing with Him that destroys the greatness of the Mystery. The declining participation in the Sunday Eucharistic celebration shows how little we Christians of today still know about appreciating the greatness of the gift that consists in His Real Presence. The Eucharist is devalued into a mere ceremonial gesture when it is taken for granted that courtesy requires Him to be offered at family celebrations or on occasions such as weddings and funerals to all those invited for family reasons.

The way people often simply receive the Holy Sacrament in communion as a matter of course shows that many see communion as a purely ceremonial gesture. Therefore, when thinking about what action is required first and foremost, it is rather obvious that we do not need another Church of our own design. Rather, what is required first and foremost is the renewal of the Faith in the Reality of Jesus Christ given to us in the Blessed Sacrament.

In conversations with victims of pedophilia, I have been made acutely aware of this first and foremost requirement. A young woman who was a [former] altar server told me that the chaplain, her superior as an altar server, always introduced the sexual abuse he was committing against her with the words: “This is my body which will be given up for you.”

It is obvious that this woman can no longer hear the very words of consecration without experiencing again all the horrific distress of her abuse. Yes, we must urgently implore the Lord for forgiveness, and first and foremost we must swear by Him and ask Him to teach us all anew to understand the greatness of His suffering, His sacrifice. And we must do all we can to protect the gift of the Holy Eucharist from abuse.

(3) And finally, there is the Mystery of the Church. The sentence with which Romano Guardini, almost 100 years ago, expressed the joyful hope that was instilled in him and many others, remains unforgotten: “An event of incalculable importance has begun; the Church is awakening in souls.”

He meant to say that no longer was the Church experienced and perceived as merely an external system entering our lives, as a kind of authority, but rather it began to be perceived as being present within people’s hearts — as something not merely external, but internally moving us. About half a century later, in reconsidering this process and looking at what had been happening, I felt tempted to reverse the sentence: “The Church is dying in souls.”

Indeed, the Church today is widely regarded as just some kind of political apparatus. One speaks of it almost exclusively in political categories, and this applies even to bishops, who formulate their conception of the church of tomorrow almost exclusively in political terms. The crisis, caused by the many cases of clerical abuse, urges us to regard the Church as something almost unacceptable, which we must now take into our own hands and redesign. But a self-made Church cannot constitute hope.

Jesus Himself compared the Church to a fishing net in which good and bad fish are ultimately separated by God Himself. There is also the parable of the Church as a field on which the good grain that God Himself has sown grows, but also the weeds that “an enemy” secretly sown onto it. Indeed, the weeds in God’s field, the Church, are excessively visible, and the evil fish in the net also show their strength. Nevertheless, the field is still God’s field and the net is God’s fishing net. And at all times, there are not only the weeds and the evil fish, but also the crops of God and the good fish. To proclaim both with emphasis is not a false form of apologetics, but a necessary service to the Truth.

In this context it is necessary to refer to an important text in the Revelation of St. John. The devil is identified as the accuser who accuses our brothers before God day and night (Revelation 12:10). St. John’s Apocalypse thus takes up a thought from the center of the framing narrative in the Book of Job (Job 1 and 2, 10; 42:7-16). In that book, the devil sought to talk down the righteousness of Job before God as being merely external. And exactly this is what the Apocalypse has to say: The devil wants to prove that there are no righteous people; that all righteousness of people is only displayed on the outside. If one could hew closer to a person, then the appearance of his justice would quickly fall away.

The narrative in Job begins with a dispute between God and the devil, in which God had referred to Job as a truly righteous man. He is now to be used as an example to test who is right. Take away his possessions and you will see that nothing remains of his piety, the devil argues. God allows him this attempt, from which Job emerges positively. Now the devil pushes on and he says: “Skin for skin! All that a man has he will give for his life. But put forth thy hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face.” (Job 2:4f)

God grants the devil a second turn. He may also touch the skin of Job. Only killing Job is denied to him. For Christians it is clear that this Job, who stands before God as an example for all mankind, is Jesus Christ. In St. John’s Apocalypse the drama of humanity is presented to us in all its breadth.

The Creator God is confronted with the devil who speaks ill of all mankind and all creation. He says, not only to God but above all to people: Look at what this God has done. Supposedly a good creation, but in reality full of misery and disgust. That disparagement of creation is really a disparagement of God. It wants to prove that God Himself is not good, and thus to turn us away from Him.

The timeliness of what the Apocalypse is telling us here is obvious. Today, the accusation against God is, above all, about characterizing His Church as entirely bad, and thus dissuading us from it. The idea of a better Church, created by ourselves, is in fact a proposal of the devil, with which he wants to lead us away from the living God, through a deceitful logic by which we are too easily duped. No, even today the Church is not just made up of bad fish and weeds. The Church of God also exists today, and today it is the very instrument through which God saves us.

It is very important to oppose the lies and half-truths of the devil with the whole truth: Yes, there is sin in the Church and evil. But even today there is the Holy Church, which is indestructible. Today there are many people who humbly believe, suffer and love, in whom the real God, the loving God, shows Himself to us. Today God also has His witnesses (martyres) in the world. We just have to be vigilant in order to see and hear them.

The word martyr is taken from procedural law. In the trial against the devil, Jesus Christ is the first and actual witness for God, the first martyr, who has since been followed by countless others.

Today’s Church is more than ever a “Church of the Martyrs” and thus a witness to the living God. If we look around and listen with an attentive heart, we can find witnesses everywhere today, especially among ordinary people, but also in the high ranks of the Church, who stand up for God with their life and suffering. It is an inertia of the heart that leads us to not wish to recognize them. One of the great and essential tasks of our evangelization is, as far as we can, to establish habitats of Faith and, above all, to find and recognize them.

I live in a house, in a small community of people who discover such witnesses of the living God again and again in everyday life and who joyfully point this out to me as well. To see and find the living Church is a wonderful task which strengthens us and makes us joyful in our Faith time and again.

At the end of my reflections I would like to thank Pope Francis for everything he does to show us, again and again, the light of God, which has not disappeared, even today. Thank you, Holy Father!

 

(Benedict XVI)

 

Translated by Anian Christoph Wimmer.

Quotes from Scripture use Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE).

Source: www.ncregister.com


Benedikt XVI über die Kirche und der Skandal des sexuellen Missbrauchs

MUST READ: “Müssen wir etwa eine andere Kirche schaffen, damit die Dinge richtig werden können? Nun, dieses Experiment ist bereits gemacht worden und bereits gescheitert” – Aktueller Brief von Benedikt XVI. – WORTLAUT auf kath.net

Vatikan (kath.net)
Vom 21. – 24. Februar 2019 hatten sich auf Einladung von Papst Franziskus im Vatikan die Vorsitzenden aller Bischofskonferenzen der Welt versammelt, um über die Krise des Glaubens und der Kirche zu beraten, die weltweit durch erschütternde Informationen über den von Klerikern verübten Mißbrauch an Minderjährigen zu spüren war. Der Umfang und das Gewicht der Nachrichten über derlei Vorgänge haben Priester und Laien zutiefst erschüttert und für nicht wenige den Glauben der Kirche als solchen in Frage gestellt. Hier mußte ein starkes Zeichen gesetzt und ein neuer Aufbruch gesucht werden, um Kirche wieder wirklich als Licht unter den Völkern und als helfende Kraft gegenüber den zerstörerischen Mächten glaubhaft zu machen.

Da ich selbst zum Zeitpunkt des öffentlichen Ausbruchs der Krise und während ihres Anwachsens an verantwortlicher Stelle als Hirte in der Kirche gewirkt habe, mußte ich mir – auch wenn ich jetzt als Emeritus nicht mehr direkt Verantwortung trage – die Frage stellen, was ich aus der Rückschau heraus zu einem neuen Aufbruch beitragen könne. So habe ich in der Zeit von der Ankündigung an bis hin zum Zeitpunkt des Zusammentreffens der Vorsitzenden der Bischofskonferenzen Notizen zusammengestellt, mit denen ich den ein oder anderen Hinweis zur Hilfe in dieser schweren Stunde beitragen kann. Nach Kontakten mit Staatssekretär Kardinal Parolin und dem Heiligen Vater selbst scheint es mir richtig, den so entstandenen Text im “Klerusblatt” zu veröffentlichen.

Meine Arbeit ist in drei Teile gegliedert. In einem ersten Punkt versuche ich ganz kurz, den allgemeinen gesellschaftlichen Kontext der Frage darzustellen, ohne den das Problem nicht verständlich ist. Ich versuche zu zeigen, daß in den 60er Jahren ein ungeheuerlicher Vorgang geschehen ist, wie es ihn in dieser Größenordnung in der Geschichte wohl kaum je gegeben hat. Man kann sagen, daß in den 20 Jahren von 1960 – 1980 die bisher geltenden Maßstäbe in Fragen Sexualität vollkommen weggebrochen sind und eine Normlosigkeit entstanden ist, die man inzwischen abzufangen sich gemüht hat.

In einem zweiten Punkt versuche ich, Auswirkungen dieser Situation in der Priesterausbildung und im Leben der Priester anzudeuten.

Schließlich möchte ich in einem dritten Teil einige Perspektiven für eine rechte Antwort von seiten der Kirche entwickeln.

I.

1. Die Sache beginnt mit der vom Staat verordneten und getragenen Einführung der Kinder und der Jugend in das Wesen der Sexualität. In Deutschland hat die Gesundheitsministerin Frau Strobel einen Film machen lassen, in dem zum Zweck der Aufklärung alles, was bisher nicht öffentlich gezeigt werden durfte, einschließlich des Geschlechtsverkehrs, nun vorgeführt wurde. Was zunächst nur für die Aufklärung junger Menschen gedacht war, ist danach wie selbstverständlich als allgemeine Möglichkeit angenommen worden.

Ähnliche Wirkungen erzielte der von der österreichischen Regierung herausgegebene “Sexkoffer”. Sex- und Pornofilme wurden nun zu einer Realität bis dahin, daß sie nun auch in den Bahnhofskinos vorgeführt wurden. Ich erinnere mich noch, wie ich eines Tages in die Stadt Regensburg gehend vor einem großen Kino Menschenmassen stehen und warten sah, wie wir sie vorher nur in Kriegszeiten erlebt hatten, wenn irgendeine Sonderzuteilung zu erhoffen war. Im Gedächtnis ist mir auch geblieben, wie ich am Karfreitag 1970 in die Stadt kam und dort alle Plakatsäulen mit einem Werbeplakat verklebt waren, das zwei völlig nackte Personen im Großformat in enger Umarmung vorstellte.

Zu den Freiheiten, die die Revolution von 1968 erkämpfen wollte, gehörte auch diese völlige sexuelle Freiheit, die keine Normen mehr zuließ. Die Gewaltbereitschaft, die diese Jahre kennzeichnete, ist mit diesem seelischen Zusammenbruch eng verbunden. In der Tat wurde in Flugzeugen kein Sexfilm mehr zugelassen, weil in der kleinen Gemeinschaft der Passagiere Gewalttätigkeit ausbrach. Weil die Auswüchse im Bereich der Kleidung ebenfalls Aggression hervorriefen, haben auch Schulleiter versucht, eine Schulkleidung einzuführen, die ein Klima des Lernens ermöglichen sollte.

Zu der Physiognomie der 68er Revolution gehörte, daß nun auch Pädophilie als erlaubt und als angemessen diagnostiziert wurde. Wenigstens für die jungen Menschen in der Kirche, aber nicht nur für sie, war dies in vieler Hinsicht eine sehr schwierige Zeit. Ich habe mich immer gefragt, wie junge Menschen in dieser Situation auf das Priestertum zugehen und es mit all seinen Konsequenzen annehmen konnten. Der weitgehende Zusammenbruch des Priesternachwuchses in jenen Jahren und die übergroße Zahl von Laisierungen waren eine Konsequenz all dieser Vorgänge.

2. Unabhängig von dieser Entwicklung hat sich in derselben Zeit ein Zusammenbruch der katholischen Moraltheologie ereignet, der die Kirche wehrlos gegenüber den Vorgängen in der Gesellschaft machte. Ich versuche ganz kurz den Hergang dieser Entwicklung zu skizzieren. Bis hin zum II. Vaticanum wurde die katholische Moraltheologie weitgehend naturrechtlich begründet, während die Heilige Schrift nur als Hintergrund oder Bekräftigung angeführt wurde. Im Ringen des Konzils um ein neues Verstehen der Offenbarung wurde die naturrechtliche Option weitgehend abgelegt und eine ganz auf die Bibel begründete Moraltheologie gefordert. Ich erinnere mich noch, wie die Jesuiten-Fakultät in Frankfurt einen höchst begabten jungen Pater (Schüller) für den Aufbau einer ganz auf die Schrift gegründeten Moral vorbereiten ließ. Die schöne Dissertation von Pater Schüller zeigt einen ersten Schritt zum Aufbau einer auf die Schrift gegründeten Moral. Pater Schüller wurde dann nach Amerika zu weiteren Studien geschickt und kam mit der Erkenntnis zurück, daß von der Bibel allein her Moral nicht systematisch dargestellt werden konnte. Er hat dann eine mehr pragmatisch vorgehende Moraltheologie versucht, ohne damit eine Antwort auf die Krise der Moral geben zu können.

Schließlich hat sich dann weitgehend die These durchgesetzt, daß Moral allein von den Zwecken des menschlichen Handelns her zu bestimmen sei. Der alte Satz “Der Zweck heiligt die Mittel” wurde zwar nicht in dieser groben Form bestätigt, aber seine Denkform war bestimmend geworden. So konnte es nun auch nichts schlechthin Gutes und ebensowenig etwas immer Böses geben, sondern nur relative Wertungen. Es gab nicht mehr das Gute, sondern nur noch das relativ, im Augenblick und von den Umständen abhängige Bessere.

Die Krise der Begründung und Darstellung der katholischen Moral erreichte in den ausgehenden 80er und in den 90er Jahren dramatische Formen. Am 5. Januar 1989 erschien die von 15 katholischen Theologie-Professoren unterzeichnete “Kölner Erklärung”, die verschiedene Krisenpunkte im Verhältnis zwischen bischöflichem Lehramt und der Aufgabe der Theologie im Auge hatte. Dieser Text, der zunächst nicht über das übliche Maß von Protesten hinausging, wuchs ganz schnell zu einem Aufschrei gegen das kirchliche Lehramt an und sammelte das Protestpotential laut sicht- und hörbar, das sich weltweit gegen die zu erwartenden Lehrtexte von Johannes Paul II. erhob (vgl. D. Mieth, Kölner Erklärung, LThK, VI3, 196).

Papst Johannes Paul II., der die Situation der Moraltheologie sehr gut kannte und sie mit Aufmerksamkeit verfolgte, ließ nun mit der Arbeit an einer Enzyklika beginnen, die diese Dinge wieder zurechtrücken sollte. Sie ist unter dem Titel “Veritatis splendor” am 6. August 1993 erschienen und hat heftige Gegenreaktionen von Seiten der Moraltheologen bewirkt. Vorher schon war es der “Katechismus der katholischen Kirche”, der in überzeugender Weise die von der Kirche verkündete Moral systematisch darstellte.

Unvergessen bleibt mir, wie der damals führende deutsche Moraltheologe Franz Böckle, nach seiner Emeritierung in seine Schweizer Heimat zurückgekehrt, im Blick auf die möglichen Entscheidungen der Enzyklika “Veritatis splendor” erklärte, wenn die Enzyklika entscheiden sollte, daß es Handlungen gebe, die immer und unter allen Umständen als schlecht einzustufen seien, wolle er dagegen mit allen ihm zur Verfügung stehenden Kräften seine Stimme erheben. Der gütige Gott hat ihm die Ausführung dieses Entschlusses erspart; Böckle starb am 8. Juli 1991. Die Enzyklika wurde am 6. August 1993 veröffentlicht und enthielt in der Tat die Entscheidung, daß es Handlungen gebe, die nie gut werden können. Der Papst war sich des Gewichts dieser Entscheidung in seiner Stunde voll bewußt und hatte gerade für diesen Teil seines Schreibens noch einmal erste Spezialisten befragt, die an sich nicht an der Redaktion der Enzyklika teilnahmen. Er konnte und durfte keinen Zweifel daran lassen, daß die Moral der Güterabwägung eine letzte Grenze respektieren muß. Es gibt Güter, die nie zur Abwägung stehen. Es gibt Werte, die nie um eines noch höheren Wertes wegen preisgegeben werden dürfen und die auch über dem Erhalt des physischen Lebens stehen. Es gibt das Martyrium. Gott ist mehr, auch als das physische Überleben. Ein Leben, das durch die Leugnung Gottes erkauft wäre, ein Leben, das auf einer letzten Lüge beruht, ist ein Unleben. Das Martyrium ist eine Grundkategorie der christlichen Existenz. Daß es in der von Böckle und von vielen anderen vertretenen Theorie im Grunde nicht mehr moralisch nötig ist, zeigt, daß hier das Wesen des Christentums selbst auf dem Spiel steht.

In der Moraltheologie war freilich inzwischen eine andere Fragestellung dringend geworden: Es setzte sich weithin die These durch, daß dem kirchlichen Lehramt nur in eigentlichen Glaubensfragen endgültige Kompetenz (“Unfehlbarkeit”) zukommt, Fragen der Moral könnten nicht Gegenstand unfehlbarer Entscheidungen des kirchlichen Lehramtes werden. An dieser These ist wohl Richtiges, das weiter diskutiert zu werden verdient. Aber es gibt ein Minimum morale, das mit der Grundentscheidung des Glaubens unlöslich verknüpft ist und das verteidigt werden muß, wenn man Glauben nicht auf eine Theorie reduzieren will, sondern in seinem Anspruch an das konkrete Leben anerkennt. Aus alledem wird sichtbar, wie grundsätzlich die Autorität der Kirche in Sachen Moral zur Frage steht. Wer der Kirche in diesem Bereich eine letzte Lehrkompetenz abspricht, zwingt sie zu einem Schweigen gerade da, wo es sich um die Grenze zwischen Wahrheit und Lüge handelt.

Unabhängig von dieser Frage wurde in weiten Kreisen der Moraltheologie die These entwickelt, daß die Kirche keine eigene Moral hat und haben kann. Dabei wird darauf hingewiesen, daß alle moralischen Thesen auch Parallelen in den übrigen Religionen kennen würden und ein christliches Proprium daher nicht existieren könne. Aber die Frage nach dem Proprium einer biblischen Moral wird nicht dadurch beantwortet, daß man zu jedem einzelnen Satz irgendwo auch eine Parallele in anderen Religionen finden kann. Vielmehr geht es um das Ganze der biblischen Moral, das als solches neu und anders ist gegenüber den einzelnen Teilen. Die Morallehre der Heiligen Schrift hat ihre Besonderheit letztlich in ihrer Verankerung im Gottesbild, im Glauben an den einen Gott, der sich in Jesus Christus gezeigt und der als Mensch gelebt hat. Der Dekalog ist eine Anwendung des biblischen Gottesglaubens auf das menschliche Leben. Gottesbild und Moral gehören zusammen und ergeben so das besondere Neue der christlichen Einstellung zur Welt und zum menschlichen Leben. Im übrigen ist das Christentum von Anfang an mit dem Wort hodós beschrieben worden. Der Glaube ist ein Weg, eine Weise zu leben. In der alten Kirche wurde das Katechumenat gegenüber einer immer mehr demoralisierten Kultur als Lebensraum geschaffen, in dem das Besondere und Neue der christlichen Weise zu leben eingeübt wurde und zugleich geschützt war gegenüber der allgemeinen Lebensweise. Ich denke, daß auch heute so etwas wie katechumenale Gemeinschaften notwendig sind, damit überhaupt christliches Leben in seiner Eigenart sich behaupten kann.

II.

Erste kirchliche Reaktionen

1. Der lang vorbereitete und im Gang befindliche Auflösungsprozeß der christlichen Auffassung von Moral hat, wie ich zu zeigen versuchte, in den 60er Jahren eine Radikalität erlebt, wie es sie vorher nicht gegeben hat. Diese Auflösung der moralischen Lehrautorität der Kirche mußte sich notwendig auch auf ihre verschiedenen Lebensräume auswirken. In dem Zusammenhang des Treffens der Vorsitzenden der Bischofskonferenzen aus aller Welt mit Papst Franziskus, interessiert vor allem die Frage des priesterlichen Lebens, zudem die der Priesterseminare. Bei dem Problem der Vorbereitung zum priesterlichen Dienst in den Seminaren ist in der Tat ein weitgehender Zusammenbruch der bisherigen Form dieser Vorbereitung festzustellen.

In verschiedenen Priesterseminaren bildeten sich homosexuelle Clubs, die mehr oder weniger offen agierten und das Klima in den Seminaren deutlich veränderten. In einem Seminar in Süddeutschland lebten Priesteramtskandidaten und Kandidaten für das Laienamt des Pastoralreferenten zusammen. Bei den gemeinsamen Mahlzeiten waren Seminaristen, verheiratete Pastoralreferenten zum Teil mit Frau und Kind und vereinzelt Pastoralreferenten mit ihren Freundinnen zusammen. Das Klima im Seminar konnte die Vorbereitung auf den Priesterberuf nicht unterstützen. Der Heilige Stuhl wußte um solche Probleme, ohne genau darüber informiert zu sein. Als ein erster Schritt wurde eine Apostolische Visitation in den Seminaren der U.S.A. angeordnet.

Da nach dem II. Vaticanum auch die Kriterien für Auswahl und Ernennung der Bischöfe geändert worden waren, war auch das Verhältnis der Bischöfe zu ihren Seminaren sehr unterschiedlich. Als Kriterium für die Ernennung neuer Bischöfe wurde nun vor allen Dingen ihre “Konziliarität” angesehen, worunter freilich sehr Verschiedenes verstanden werden konnte. In der Tat wurde konziliare Gesinnung in vielen Teilen der Kirche als eine der bisherigen Tradition gegenüber kritische oder negative Haltung verstanden, die nun durch ein neues, radikal offenes Verhältnis zur Welt ersetzt werden sollte. Ein Bischof, der vorher Regens gewesen war, hatte den Seminaristen Pornofilme vorführen lassen, angeblich mit der Absicht, sie so widerstandsfähig gegen ein glaubenswidriges Verhalten zu machen. Es gab – nicht nur in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika – einzelne Bischöfe, die die katholische Tradition insgesamt ablehnten und in ihren Bistümern eine Art von neuer moderner “Katholizität” auszubilden trachteten. Vielleicht ist es erwähnenswert, daß in nicht wenigen Seminaren Studenten, die beim Lesen meiner Bücher ertappt wurden, als nicht geeignet zum Priestertum angesehen wurden. Meine Bücher wurden wie schlechte Literatur verborgen und nur gleichsam unter der Bank gelesen.

Die Visitation, die nun erfolgte, brachte keine neuen Erkenntnisse, weil sich offenbar verschiedene Kräfte zusammengetan hatten, um die wirkliche Situation zu verbergen. Eine zweite Visitation wurde angeordnet und brachte erheblich mehr Erkenntnisse, blieb aber im ganzen doch folgenlos. Dennoch hat sich seit den 70er Jahren die Situation in den Seminaren allgemein konsolidiert. Trotzdem kam es nur vereinzelt zu einer neuen Erstarkung der Priesterberufe, weil die Situation im ganzen sich anders entwickelt hatte.

2. Die Frage der Pädophilie ist, soweit ich mich erinnere, erst in der zweiten Hälfte der 80er Jahre brennend geworden. Sie war in den U.S.A. inzwischen bereits zu einem öffentlichen Problem angewachsen, so daß die Bischöfe in Rom Hilfe suchten, weil das Kirchenrecht, so wie es im neuen Kodex verfaßt ist, nicht ausreichend schien, um die nötigen Maßnahmen zu ergreifen. Rom und die römischen Kanonisten taten sich zunächst schwer mit diesen Anliegen; ihrer Meinung nach mußte die zeitweilige Suspension vom priesterlichen Amt ausreichen, um Reinigung und Klärung zu bewirken. Dies konnte von den amerikanischen Bischöfen nicht angenommen werden, weil die Priester damit im Dienst des Bischofs verblieben und so als direkt mit ihm verbundene Figuren beurteilt wurden. Eine Erneuerung und Vertiefung des bewußt locker gebauten Strafrechts des neuen Kodex mußte sich erst langsam Bahn schaffen.

Dazu kam aber ein grundsätzliches Problem in der Auffassung des Strafrechts. Als “konziliar” galt nur noch der sogenannte Garantismus. Das heißt, es mußten vor allen Dingen die Rechte der Angeklagten garantiert werden und dies bis zu einem Punkt hin, der faktisch überhaupt eine Verurteilung ausschloß. Als Gegengewicht gegen die häufig ungenügende Verteidigungsmöglichkeit von angeklagten Theologen wurde nun deren Recht auf Verteidigung im Sinn des Garantismus so weit ausgedehnt, daß Verurteilungen kaum noch möglich waren.

An dieser Stelle sei mir ein kleiner Exkurs erlaubt. Angesichts des Umfangs der Pädophilie-Verfehlungen ist ein Wort Jesu neu ins Gedächtnis gedrungen, welches sagt: “Wer einen von diesen Kleinen, die an mich glauben, zum Bösen verführt, für den wäre es besser, wenn er mit einem Mühlstein um den Hals ins Meer geworfen würde” (Mk 9, 42). Dieses Wort spricht in seinem ursprünglichen Sinn nicht von sexueller Verführung von Kindern. Das Wort “die Kleinen” bezeichnet in der Sprache Jesu die einfachen Glaubenden, die durch den intellektuellen Hochmut der sich gescheit Dünkenden in ihrem Glauben zu Fall gebracht werden können. Jesus schützt also hier das Gut des Glaubens mit einer nachdrücklichen Strafdrohung an diejenigen, die daran Schaden tun. Die moderne Verwendung des Satzes ist in sich nicht falsch, aber sie darf nicht den Ursinn verdecken lassen. Darin kommt gegen jeden Garantismus deutlich zum Vorschein, daß nicht nur das Recht des Angeklagten wichtig ist und der Garantie bedarf. Ebenso wichtig sind hohe Güter wie der Glaube. Ein ausgewogenes Kirchenrecht, das dem Ganzen der Botschaft Jesu entspricht, muß also nicht nur garantistisch für den Angeklagten sein, dessen Achtung ein Rechtsgut ist. Es muß auch den Glauben schützen, der ebenfalls ein wichtiges Rechtsgut ist. Ein recht gebautes Kirchenrecht muß also eine doppelte Garantie – Rechtsschutz des Angeklagten, Rechtsschutz des im Spiel stehenden Gutes – beinhalten. Wenn man heute diese in sich klare Auffassung vorträgt, trifft man im allgemeinen bei der Frage des Schutzes des Rechtsgutes Glaube auf taube Ohren. Der Glaube erscheint im allgemeinen Rechtsbewußtsein nicht mehr den Rang eines zu schützenden Gutes zu haben. Dies ist eine bedenkliche Situation, die von den Hirten der Kirche bedacht und ernstgenommen werden muß.

Den kurzen Notizen über die Situation der Priesterausbildung zum Zeitpunkt des öffentlichen Ausbrechens der Krise möchte ich nun noch ein paar Hinweise zur Entwicklung des Kirchenrechts in dieser Frage anfügen. An sich ist für Delikte von Priestern die Kleruskongregation zuständig. Da aber damals in ihr der Garantismus weithin die Situation beherrschte, bin ich mit Papst Johannes Paul II. einig geworden, daß es angemessen sei, die Kompetenz über diese Delikte der Glaubenskongregation zuzuweisen, und zwar unter dem Titel “Delicta maiora contra fidem”. Mit dieser Zuweisung war auch die Möglichkeit zur Höchststrafe, das heißt zum Ausschluß aus dem Klerus möglich, die unter anderen Rechtstiteln nicht zu verhängen gewesen wäre. Dies war nicht etwa ein Trick, um die Höchststrafe vergeben zu können, sondern folgt aus dem Gewicht des Glaubens für die Kirche. In der Tat ist es wichtig zu sehen, daß bei solchen Verfehlungen von Klerikern letztlich der Glaube beschädigt wird: Nur wo der Glaube nicht mehr das Handeln des Menschen bestimmt, sind solche Vergehen möglich. Die Schwere der Strafe setzt allerdings auch einen klaren Beweis für das Vergehen voraus – der in Geltung bleibende Inhalt des Garantismus. Mit anderen Worten: Um die Höchststrafe rechtmäßig verhängen zu können, ist ein wirklicher Strafprozeß notwendig. Damit waren aber sowohl die Diözesen wie der Heilige Stuhl überfordert. Wir haben so eine Mindestform des Strafprozesses formuliert und den Fall offen gelassen, daß der Heilige Stuhl selbst den Prozeß übernimmt, wo die Diözese oder die Metropolie nicht dazu in der Lage ist. In jedem Fall sollte der Prozeß durch die Glaubenskongregation überprüft werden, um die Rechte des Angeklagten zu garantieren. Schließlich aber haben wir in der Feria IV (d.h. der Versammlung der Mitglieder der Kongregation) eine Appellationsinstanz geschaffen, um auch die Möglichkeit einer Berufung gegen den Prozeß zu haben. Weil dies alles eigentlich über die Kräfte der Glaubenskongregation hinausreichte und so zeitliche Verzögerungen entstanden sind, die von der Sache her verhindert werden mußten, hat Papst Franziskus weitere Reformen vorgenommen.

III.

1. Was müssen wir tun? Müssen wir etwa eine andere Kirche schaffen, damit die Dinge richtig werden können? Nun, dieses Experiment ist bereits gemacht worden und bereits gescheitert. Nur der Gehorsam und die Liebe zu unserem Herrn Jesus Christus kann den rechten Weg weisen. Versuchen wir also als erstes, neu und von innen her zu verstehen, was der Herr mit uns gewollt hat und will.

Ich würde zunächst sagen: Wenn wir den Inhalt des in der Bibel grundgelegten Glaubens wirklich ganz kurz zusammenfassen wollen, dürfen wir sagen: Der Herr hat eine Geschichte der Liebe mit uns begonnen und will die ganze Schöpfung in ihr zusammenfassen. Die Gegenkraft gegen das Böse, das uns und die ganze Welt bedroht, kann letztlich nur darin bestehen, daß wir uns auf diese Liebe einlassen. Sie ist die wirkliche Gegenkraft gegen das Böse. Die Macht des Bösen entsteht durch unsere Verweigerung der Liebe zu Gott. Erlöst ist, wer sich der Liebe Gottes anvertraut. Unser Nichterlöstsein beruht auf der Unfähigkeit, Gott zu lieben. Gott lieben zu lernen, ist also der Weg der Erlösung der Menschen.

Versuchen wir, diesen wesentlichen Inhalt der Offenbarung Gottes nun etwas weiter auszufalten. Dann können wir sagen: Das erste grundlegende Geschenk, das uns der Glaube darbietet, besteht in der Gewißheit, daß Gott existiert. Eine Welt ohne Gott kann nur eine Welt ohne Sinn sein. Denn woher kommt dann alles, was ist? Jedenfalls hat es keinen geistigen Grund. Es ist irgendwie einfach da und hat dann weder irgendein Ziel noch irgendeinen Sinn. Es gibt dann keine Maßstäbe des Guten oder des Bösen. Dann kann sich nur durchsetzen, was stärker ist als das andere. Die Macht ist dann das einzige Prinzip. Wahrheit zählt nicht, es gibt sie eigentlich nicht. Nur wenn die Dinge einen geistigen Grund haben, gewollt und gedacht sind – nur wenn es einen Schöpfergott gibt, der gut ist und das Gute will – kann auch das Leben des Menschen Sinn haben.

Daß es Gott gibt als Schöpfer und als Maßstab aller Dinge, ist zunächst ein Urverlangen. Aber ein Gott, der sich überhaupt nicht äußern, nicht zu erkennen geben würde, bliebe eine Vermutung und könnte so die Gestalt unseres Lebens nicht bestimmen. Damit Gott auch wirklich Gott in der bewußten Schöpfung ist, müssen wir erwarten, daß er in irgendeiner Form sich äußert. Er hat es auf vielerlei Weise getan, entscheidend aber in dem Ruf, der an Abraham erging und den Menschen auf der Suche nach Gott die Orientierung gab, die über alles Erwarten hinausführt: Gott wird selbst Geschöpf, spricht als Mensch mit uns Menschen.

So wird endgültig der Satz “Gott ist” zu einer wirklich frohen Botschaft, eben weil er mehr als Erkenntnis ist, weil er Liebe schafft und ist. Dies den Menschen wieder zum Bewußtsein zu bringen, ist die erste und grundlegende Aufgabe, die uns vom Herrn her aufgetragen ist.

Eine Gesellschaft, in der Gott abwesend ist – eine Gesellschaft, die ihn nicht kennt und als inexistent behandelt, ist eine Gesellschaft, die ihr Maß verliert. In unserer Gegenwart wurde das Stichwort vom Tod Gottes erfunden. Wenn Gott in einer Gesellschaft stirbt, wird sie frei, wurde uns versichert. In Wahrheit bedeutet das Sterben Gottes in einer Gesellschaft auch das Ende ihrer Freiheit, weil der Sinn stirbt, der Orientierung gibt. Und weil das Maß verschwindet, das uns die Richtung weist, indem es uns gut und böse zu unterscheiden lehrt. Die westliche Gesellschaft ist eine Gesellschaft, in der Gott in der Öffentlichkeit abwesend ist und für sie nichts mehr zu sagen hat. Und deswegen ist es eine Gesellschaft, in der das Maß des Menschlichen immer mehr verloren geht. An einzelnen Punkten wird dann mitunter jählings spürbar, daß geradezu selbstverständlich geworden ist, was böse ist und den Menschen zerstört. So ist es mit der Pädophilie. Vor kurzem noch als durchaus rechtens theoretisiert, hat sie sich immer weiter ausgebreitet. Und nun erkennen wir mit Erschütterung, daß an unseren Kindern und Jugendlichen Dinge geschehen, die sie zu zerstören drohen. Daß sich dies auch in der Kirche und unter Priestern ausbreiten konnte, muß uns in besonderem Maß erschüttern.

Wieso konnte Pädophilie ein solches Ausmaß erreichen? Im letzten liegt der Grund in der Abwesenheit Gottes. Auch wir Christen und Priester reden lieber nicht von Gott, weil diese Rede nicht prakisch zu sein scheint. Nach der Erschütterung des 2. Weltkriegs hatten wir in Deutschland unsere Verfassung noch ausdrücklich unter die Verantwortung vor Gott als Leitmaß gestellt. Ein halbes Jahrhundert später war es nicht mehr möglich, die Verantwortung vor Gott als Maßstab in die europäische Verfassung aufzunehmen. Gott wird als Parteiangelegenheit einer kleinen Gruppe angesehen und kann nicht mehr als Maßstab für die Gemeinschaft im ganzen stehen. In diesem Entscheid spiegelt sich die Situation des Westens, in dem Gott eine Privatangelegenheit einer Minderheit geworden ist.

Eine erste Aufgabe, die aus den moralischen Erschütterungen unserer Zeit folgen muß, besteht darin, daß wir selbst wieder anfangen, von Gott und auf ihn hin zu leben. Wir müssen vor allen Dingen selbst wieder lernen, Gott als Grundlage unseres Lebens zu erkennen und nicht als eine irgendwie unwirkliche Floskel beiseite zu lassen. Unvergessen bleibt mir die Mahnung, die mir der große Theologe Hans Urs von Balthasar auf einem seiner Kartenbriefe einmal schrieb: “Den dreifaltigen Gott, Vater, Sohn und Heiliger Geist, nicht voraussetzen, sondern vorsetzen!”

In der Tat wird auch in der Theologie oft Gott als Selbstverständlichkeit vorausgesetzt, aber konkret handelt man nicht von ihm. Das Thema Gott scheint so unwirklich, so weit von den Dingen entfernt, die uns beschäftigen. Und doch wird alles anders, wenn man Gott nicht voraussetzt, sondern vorsetzt. Ihn nicht irgendwie im Hintergrund beläßt, sondern ihn als Mittelpunkt unseres Denkens, Redens und Handelns anerkennt.

2. Gott ist für uns Mensch geworden. Das Geschöpf Mensch liegt ihm so sehr am Herzen, daß er sich mit ihm vereinigt hat und so ganz praktisch in die menschliche Geschichte eingetreten ist. Er spricht mit uns, er lebt mit uns, er leidet mit uns und hat den Tod für uns auf sich genommen. Darüber reden wir zwar in der Theologie ausführlich, mit gelehrten Worten und Gedanken. Aber gerade so entsteht die Gefahr, daß wir uns zu Herren des Glaubens machen, anstatt uns vom Glauben erneuern und beherrschen zu lassen.

Bedenken wir dies in einem zentralen Punkt, der Feier der heiligen Eucharistie. Unser Umgang mit der Eucharistie kann nur Sorge erwecken. Im II. Vatikanischen Konzil ging es zu Recht darum, dieses Sakrament der Gegenwart von Leib und Blut Christi, der Gegenwart seiner Person, seines Leidens, Sterbens und Auferstehens wieder in die Mitte des christlichen Lebens und der Existenz der Kirche zu rücken. Zum Teil ist die Sache wirklich geschehen, und wir wollen dem Herrn dafür von Herzen dankbar sein.

Aber weithin dominant ist eine andere Haltung: Nicht eine neue Ehrfurcht vor der Anwesenheit von Tod und Auferstehung Christi dominiert, sondern eine Art des Umgehens mit ihm, die die Größe des Geheimnisses zerstört. Die sinkende Teilnahme an der sonntäglichen Eucharistiefeier zeigt, wie wenig wir Christen von heute noch die Größe der Gabe einzuschätzen vermögen, die in seiner realen Anwesenheit besteht. Die Eucharistie wird zu einer zeremoniellen Geste abgewertet, wenn es als selbstverständlich gilt, daß die Höflichkeit es gebietet, sie bei familiären Festen oder bei Anlässen wie Hochzeit und Beerdigung allen zu reichen, die aus verwandtschaftlichen Gründen dazu eingeladen sind. Die Selbstverständlichkeit, mit der mancherorts einfach die Anwesenden auch das heilige Sakrament empfangen, zeigt, daß man in der Kommunion nur noch eine zeremonielle Geste sieht. Wenn wir also nachdenken, was zu tun ist, so wird klar, daß wir nicht eine von uns erdachte andere Kirche brauchen. Was notwendig ist, ist vielmehr die Erneuerung des Glaubens an die uns geschenkte Wirklichkeit Jesu Christi im Sakrament.

In den Gesprächen mit Opfern der Pädophilie ist mir diese Notwendigkeit immer eindringlicher bewußt geworden. Eine junge Frau, die als Ministrantin Altardienst leistete, hat mir erzählt, daß der Kaplan, ihr Vorgesetzter als Ministrantin, den sexuellen Mißbrauch, den er mit ihr trieb, immer mit den Worten einleitete: “Das ist mein Leib, der für dich hingegeben wird.” Daß diese Frau die Wandlungsworte nicht mehr anhören kann, ohne die ganze Qual des Mißbrauchs erschreckend in sich selbst zu spüren, ist offenkundig. Ja, wir müssen den Herrn dringend um Vergebung anflehen und vor allen Dingen ihn beschwören und bitten, daß er uns alle neu die Größe seines Leidens, seines Opfers zu verstehen lehre. Und wir müssen alles tun, um das Geschenk der heiligen Eucharistie vor Mißbrauch zu schützen.

3. Und da ist schließlich das Mysterium der Kirche. Unvergessen bleibt der Satz, mit dem vor beinahe 100 Jahren Romano Guardini die freudige Hoffnung ausgesprochen hat, die sich ihm und vielen anderen damals aufdrängte: “Ein Ereignis von unabsehbarer Tragweite hat begonnen; die Kirche erwacht in den Seelen.” Er wollte damit sagen, daß Kirche nicht mehr bloß wie vorher ein von außen auf uns zutretender Apparat, als eine Art Behörde erlebt und empfunden wurde, sondern anfing, in den Herzen selbst als gegenwärtig empfunden zu werden – als etwas nicht nur Äußerliches, sondern inwendig uns berührend. Etwa ein halbes Jahrhundert später fühlte ich mich beim Wiederbedenken dieses Vorgangs und beim Blick auf das, was eben geschah, versucht, den Satz umzukehren: “Die Kirche stirbt in den Seelen.” In der Tat wird die Kirche heute weithin nur noch als eine Art von politischem Apparat betrachtet. Man spricht über sie praktisch fast ausschließlich mit politischen Kategorien, und dies gilt hin bis zu Bischöfen, die ihre Vorstellung über die Kirche von morgen weitgehend ausschließlich politisch formulieren. Die Krise, die durch die vielen Fälle von Mißbrauch durch Priester verursacht wurde, drängt dazu, die Kirche geradezu als etwas Mißratenes anzusehen, das wir nun gründlich selbst neu in die Hand nehmen und neu gestalten müssen. Aber eine von uns selbst gemachte Kirche kann keine Hoffnung sein.

Jesus selber hat die Kirche mit einem Fischernetz verglichen, in dem gute und böse Fische sind, die am Ende von Gott selbst geschieden werden müssen. Daneben steht das Gleichnis von der Kirche als einem Ackerfeld, auf dem das gute Getreide wächst, das Gott selbst hingesät hat, aber auch das Unkraut, das “ein Feind” geheim ebenfalls darauf gesät hat. In der Tat ist das Unkraut auf dem Ackerfeld Gottes, der Kirche, übermäßig sichtbar, und die bösen Fische im Netz zeigen ebenfalls ihre Stärke. Aber dennoch bleibt der Acker Gottes Ackerfeld und das Netz das Fischernetz Gottes. Und es gibt in allen Zeiten nicht nur das Unkraut und die bösen Fische, sondern auch die Saat Gottes und die guten Fische. Beides gleichfalls mit Nachdruck zu verkünden, ist nicht eine falsche Apologetik, sondern ein notwendiger Dienst an der Wahrheit.

In diesem Zusammenhang ist es notwendig, auf einen wichtigen Text in der Offenbarung des Johannes zu verweisen. Der Teufel wird da als der Ankläger gekennzeichnet, der unsere Brüder bei Tag und bei Nacht vor Gott verklagt (Apk 12, 10). Die Apokalypse nimmt damit einen Gedanken wieder auf, der im Mittelpunkt der Rahmenerzählung des Buchs Ijob steht (Ijob 1 und 2, 10; 42, 7 – 16). Dort wird erzählt, daß der Teufel vor Gott die Gerechtigkeit des Ijob als nur äußerlich herunterzureden versuchte. Dabei ging es gerade um das, was die Apokalypse sagt: Der Teufel will beweisen, daß es gerechte Menschen nicht gibt; daß alle Gerechtigkeit von Menschen nur von außen dargestellt sei. Wenn man näher hinklopfen könne, falle der Schein der Gerechtigkeit schnell ab. Die Erzählung beginnt mit einem Disput zwischen Gott und dem Teufel, in dem Gott auf Ijob als einen wirklich Gerechten verwiesen hatte. An ihm soll nun die Probe aufs Exempel vollzogen werden, wer da recht hat. Nimm ihm seinen Besitz weg und du wirst sehen, daß von seiner Frömmigkeit nichts übrigbleibt, argumentiert der Teufel. Gott gestattet ihm diesen Versuch, aus dem Ijob positiv hervorgeht. Nun treibt es der Teufel weiter, und er sagt: “Haut um Haut! Alles, was der Mensch besitzt, gibt er hin für sein Leben. Doch streck deine Hand aus, und rühr an sein Gebein und Fleisch: wahrhaftig, er wird dir ins Angesicht fluchen” (Ijob 2,4f). So gewährt Gott dem Teufel eine zweite Runde. Er darf auch die Haut des Ijob berühren. Nur ihn zu töten, wird ihm versagt. Für die Christen ist klar, daß der Ijob, der für die ganze Menschheit als Exempel vor Gott steht, Jesus Christus ist. In der Apokalypse wird uns das Drama des Menschen in seiner ganzen Breite dargestellt. Dem Schöpfergott steht der Teufel gegenüber, der die ganze Menschheit und die ganze Schöpfung schlechtredet. Der sagt nicht nur zu Gott, sondern vor allen Dingen zu den Menschen: Seht euch an, was dieser Gott gemacht hat. Angeblich eine gute Schöpfung. In Wirklichkeit ist sie in ihrer Ganzheit voller Elend und Ekel. Das Schlechtreden der Schöpfung ist in Wirklichkeit ein Schlechtreden Gottes. Es will beweisen, daß Gott selbst nicht gut ist und uns von ihm abbringen.

Die Aktualität dessen, was uns hier die Apokalypse sagt, ist offenkundig. Es geht heute in der Anklage gegen Gott vor allen Dingen darum, seine Kirche als ganze schlechtzumachen und uns so von ihr abzubringen. Die Idee einer von uns selbst besser gemachten Kirche ist in Wirklichkeit ein Vorschlag des Teufels, mit dem er uns vom lebendigen Gott abbringen will durch eine lügnerische Logik, auf die wir zu leicht hereinfallen. Nein, die Kirche besteht auch heute nicht nur aus bösen Fischen und aus Unkraut. Die Kirche Gottes gibt es auch heute, und sie ist gerade auch heute das Werkzeug, durch das Gott uns rettet. Es ist sehr wichtig, den Lügen und Halbwahrheiten des Teufels die ganze Wahrheit entgegenzustellen: Ja, es gibt Sünde in der Kirche und Böses. Aber es gibt auch heute die heilige Kirche, die unzerstörbar ist. Es gibt auch heute viele demütig glaubende, leidende und liebende Menschen, in denen der wirkliche Gott, der liebende Gott sich uns zeigt. Gott hat auch heute seine Zeugen (“martyres”) in der Welt. Wir müssen nur wach sein, um sie zu sehen und zu hören.

Das Wort Märtyrer ist dem Prozeßrecht entnommen. Im Prozeß gegen den Teufel ist Jesus Christus der erste und eigentliche Zeuge für Gott, der erste Märtyrer, dem seitdem Unzählige gefolgt sind. Die Kirche von heute ist mehr denn je eine Kirche der Märtyrer und so Zeuge des lebendigen Gottes. Wenn wir uns wachen Herzens umsehen und umhören, können wir überall heute, gerade unter den einfachen Menschen, aber doch auch in den hohen Rängen der Kirche die Zeugen finden, die mit ihrem Leben und Leiden für Gott einstehen. Es ist eine Trägheit des Herzens, daß wir sie nicht wahrnehmen wollen. Zu den großen und wesentlichen Aufgaben unserer Verkündigung gehört es, soweit wir können, Lebensorte des Glaubens zu schaffen und vor allen Dingen sie zu finden und anzuerkennen.

Ich lebe in einem Haus, in einer kleinen Gemeinschaft von Menschen, die immer wieder solche Zeugen des lebendigen Gottes im Alltag entdecken und freudig auch mich darauf hinweisen. Die lebendige Kirche zu sehen und zu finden, ist eine wunderbare Aufgabe, die uns selbst stärkt und uns des Glaubens immer neu froh werden läßt.

Am Ende meiner Überlegungen möchte ich Papst Franziskus danken für alles, was er tut, um uns immer wieder das Licht Gottes zu zeigen, das auch heute nicht untergegangen ist. Danke, Heiliger Vater!

Ein Hinweis: Das Schreiben wurde mit Genehmigung von Papst Franziskus veröffentlicht und wird im April im bayerischen „Klerusblatt“ abgedruckt.

Source: www.kath.net


“Sexualität hat mit Verantwortung zu tun. Viele Eltern und Jugendliche sind dankbar für TeenStar”

TeenStar – wertvolles Angebot bietet altersgerechte Orientierung:
Während noch im Feber von offizieller Seite verlautbart wurde, dass die Prüfung der umfangreich vorgelegten TeenSTAR-Unterlagen keine Beanstandungen ergab, soll der Verein nun an Schulen verboten werden.
Im KFV-Kärnten ortet man einen einseitigen und diffamierenden Umgang im Blick auf die sexualpädagogischen Angebote von TeenSTAR.
“In die Medien gelangen immer wieder einseitige Informationen, die ebenso einseitig dargestellt Veröffentlichung finden. Wer diffamierende Äußerungen – wie in der ZIB geschehen – ohne jeden wissenschaftlichen Beweis als Fakten darstellt, der will nicht informieren sondern betreibt Ideologie!” so Andreas Henckel Donnersmarck.
Dabei falle auf, dass die Vermittlung eines jüdisch-christlichen Menschenbildes zunehmend in Frage gestellt bzw. durch den neuen Sexualerlass geradezu verunmöglicht wird.
„Weil christliche Positionen nicht ins Konzept der Genderideologie passen, werden sie verboten!“ so der Vorsitzende des Familienverbandes.
Zumindest vom Bildungsministerium aber dürften Eltern in einer so zentralen Erziehungsaufgabe eine Prüfung aller Angebote erwarten. Nur jene zuzulassen, die behaupten, das Geschlecht sei eine freie und beliebige Einzelentscheidung, diskriminiert den christlichen Zugang und berücksichtigt zudem nicht die Forschungsergebnisse der Biologie und Verhaltensforschung.
Ähnliches ließe sich auch anmerken über die an den Schulen zum Einsatz kommende Broschüre “Erster Sex und große Liebe”. Die Inhalte dieser von den Jugendinfostellen herausgegebenen Broschüre vermittele Inhalte, die sehr unsensibel, schamverletzend und verstörend seien.
“Sexualität hat mit Verantwortung zu tun. Viele Eltern und Jugendliche sind dankbar für TeenStar,” so Henckel Donnersmarck.
Klagenfurt, 4.4.2019
Katholischer Familienverband Kärnten

Catholics bring pro-life voices to the UN Commission for Women

.- As participants in the UN Commission for Women’s annual gathering advocated for increased international access to abortion, side events hosted by the Vatican and other Catholic groups presented a pro-life perspective on women’s empowerment at the UN.

The ten-day international meeting in New York March 11-22 included debate as to whether this year’s final document will include “universal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights,” as a part of the commission’s “agreed conclusions,” as it did last year.

The topic of the commission’s 63rd session this year is “access to public services and sustainable infrastructure for gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls.”

For some at the UN meeting, access to public services means access to abortion.

“It’s a crime to prevent a woman from having access to abortion,”  said French Minister of Gender Marlene Schiappa at an event at the UN headquarters March 13.

Obianuju Ekeocha, president of Culture of Life Africa, said that her “head almost exploded” when she heard this.

She added that in her view, the UN Commission for Women’s annual gathering is “the heart of the pro-abortion movement.”

“The meetings that I have gone to … the people I have listened to speak right here at the United Nations, [for them] there is no room for compromise,” Ekeocha said in a video statement.

“They want abortion to be legal. They want it to be legal in every country in every situation,” she added.

Ekeocha said she attended a UN event in which an abortionist-midwife demonstrated how she trains other abortionists in developing countries. The UN event was entitled “All united for the right to abortion.”

During the week of the commission meeting, a screening of Ekeocha’s documentary, “Strings Attached,” was streamed at the Nigerian Mission to United Nations on March 12. The documentary uncovers “ideological colonization” of contraceptives and abortion into African countries and gives voice to African women who are suffering its effects.

Pro-life advocate Lila Rose spoke on the topic “Motherhood is a gift” at UN side event co-hosted by the Holy See Mission to the UN and C-Fam, entitled “Protecting Femininity and Human Dignity in Women’s Empowerment and Gender Equality Policies Today.”

The Holy See Mission to the UN sponsored five side events addressing issues that affect women, from human trafficking to protections for women and girls with Down syndrome.

In conjunction with the Catholic Women’s Forum, the Holy See helped to organize an event on “Valuing Unpaid Work and Caregiving.”

Archbishop Bernardito Auza, the Apostolic Nuncio and Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations said at the event that there has been a presumption in the United Nations that “a person’s work outside the home is far more valuable than a person’s work inside the home.”

Auza questioned whether “a prioritization of a person’s work in the labor markets over care work at home flows from woman’s deepest desires or whether it’s an emulation of a flawed, hyper-masculine, way of looking at the world, one in which work, and what work can provide, is treated as the most important value.”

“No women who desires to give of her time in this way should be stigmatized by society or penalized in comparison to other women or to men. Work schedules should be continuously adapted so that if a woman wishes to work she can do so without relinquishing her family life or enduring chronic stress,” he said. “Rather than having her readjust everything to the rules of the marketplace, the marketplace itself should be adjusted to what society recognizes is the enormous personal and social value of her work.”

“Humanity owes its very survival to the gift of caregiving, most notably in motherhood, and this indispensable contribution should be esteemed as such, by both women and by men,” Auza said.

Source: catholicnewsagency.com


Nearly 2 million attend March for Life in Argentina

Pro-life rally in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on March 23, 2019. (Credit: Facebook Marcha por la Vida.)

ROME – Nearly two million people marched on Saturday in Pope Francis’s native land of Argentina in pro-life demonstrations dedicated to defending the life of the unborn, and offering solutions to mothers in crisis pregnancies.

The rally was organized by Argentina’s March for Life, a lay-led organization. Although Catholic bishops, evangelical pastors, and Jewish and Islamic leaders participated, they were not involved in the organization of the event, which took place in more than 200 locations across the country.

The movement doesn’t have a political affiliation, either. In fact, the only political message issued from the stage was a warning to Argentine politicians: Abortion will be an issue in the upcoming presidential elections, and those who were out in the streets won’t vote for candidates who support overturning Argentina’s pro-life laws.

The other thing close to a political note of the rally was the presence, on stage in the country’s capital Buenos Aires, of a group of veterans from the 1980’s Falklands War, the only armed conflict in Argentina’s recent history.

“We’re all ordinary people, but at a moment in life we’re called to do extraordinary things for the nation. We defended both islands. Today, we’re here, as soldiers, to implore that we defend both lives, to save the nation,” their spokesman said.

Buenos Aires drew the largest crowd, with more than 300,000 people marching across the capital. Aerial footage showed that at one point, the column of people was more than one mile long.

Though the rally had been planned well in advance, the city government provided no security for the event, and neither did the national government. However, several participants told Crux that “seeing the climate of joy and celebration, it would have been a waste of resources.”

Some did, however, regret the fact that there were very few traffic police to make sure that those walking were safe from traffic, and in several instances cars could be seen among the crowd.

The city of Buenos Aires is governed by Horacio Larreta, who belongs to the party of President Mauricio Macri, who last year allowed Congress to debate the legalization of abortion for the first time in a decade.

According to Carolina Brown, one of the organizers of Saturday’s rally, there was a “palpable spirit of celebration, of joy, with families rallying together, as well as an overwhelming presence of young people.”

The latter, she said, wasn’t the case last year, but “seeing that young people are the ones who will have to continue fighting, seeing them come out in numbers, joining friends, is a reason for hope.”

During “march season,” Brown has a key role: Making sure that the people in the street find out about the event, as they have little support from Argentina’s major media outlets, and not everyone has access to social media.

“But Argentina, culturally, is pro-life, so when we’re out in the streets with the light blue handkerchiefs that represent the pro-life movement, many approach us, ask for information, ask for a handkerchief for themselves,” she told Crux on Sunday.

According to Brown, the narrative and attitude of the pro-abortion groups in the country “helps us a lot” because “Argentina is pro-life.”

“I’m very thankful, as an Argentine, of the response the convocation received, and also of the country I belong to: the Argentine people is expressing itself in the defense of life,” she said.

Pictures from the different rallies across the country show people holding signs calling for the state to “save them both,” people claiming to be “agnostic, leftist, pro-life,” “with abortion I won’t vote you,” “pro-life generation” and “lesbians for life.”

In different shapes and forms, the rally has been taking place every year since 1998, when the country declared March 25 to be the Day of the Unborn Child, but the participation and visibility has grown exponentially in the past two years, after the strong effort to legalize abortion.

Abortion today is illegal in Argentina, though there’s a protocol adopted by some states that allows for the practice when the pregnancy is the result of rape, or the life of the mother is at risk.

According to Alejando Geyer, one of the organizers of the rally, the event took place this year for three reasons: “Everyone’s right to be born, the right of families to educate their children without gender ideology, and the need to raise awareness of the fact that in our country, particularly during this year of elections, we define the future of the country, of the family, and of millions of unborn children.”

Source: cruxnow.com