German bishop: Bishops’ Synod Could Topple Francis’ Popularity

Bishop Stefan Oster of Passau is the youngest diocesan bishop in Germany. He belongs to the Salesian order. A strong public presence in the media, he is seen as “conservative” – for example, for his defense of clerical celibacy and the nonordination or women. In a recent interview in the Augsburger Allgemeine he said this about how the upcoming synod could hurt Pope Francis’ popularity:

AA: Pope Francis is also a member of a religious order and he stands for a “poor church for the poor.” He is much celebrated, in stark contrast to Tebartz-van Elst [the “bling bishop” whom the pope removed from Limburg – awr]. When will the positive mood collapse?

Bishop Oster: I fear that the synod of bishops on the family in October could be such a critical moment. Many people expect decisive reforms from it. But the church will not be able to take the steps that the majority of the people expect – especially regarding the divorced and remarried. Theologically and pastorally it won’t be possible, and this will disappoint many.

AA: What might a solution look like for dealing with divorced and remarried who are excluded from the reception of Communion?

Bishop Oster: We need to take a deep breath. I don’t believe that we will find a quick and general solution. In place of this, we will have to look always at the particular cases.

tr. awr

Anthony Ruff, OSB

Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB, is a monk of St. John's Abbey. He teaches liturgy, liturgical music, and Gregorian chant at St. John's University School of Theology-Seminary. He is widely published and frequently presents across the country on liturgy and music. He is the author of Sacred Music and Liturgical Reform: Treasures and Transformations, and of Responsorial Psalms for Weekday Mass: Advent, Christmas, Lent, Easter. He does priestly ministry at the neighboring community of Benedictine sisters in St. Joseph.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

24 responses to “German bishop: Bishops’ Synod Could Topple Francis’ Popularity”

  1. Michael O'Connor

    I think the bishop is right that the synod(s) will be a critical moment for this papacy, but wrong to be so certain of the outcomes.

    Reply
  2. Christian McConnell

    I must be out of the loop. I haven’t been expecting much from this synod at all.

    Reply
    1. Brian Palmer

      @Christian McConnell – comment #2:
      Blessed are they who expect nothing for . . . . . Only those for whom the synod means anything will be paying very much attention to it.

      Reply
  3. Paul Schlachter

    My memory must be foggy. Wasn’t there a runaway synod about 50 years ago?

    Reply
  4. Scott Pluff

    “Theologically and pastorally it won’t be possible.” Ah, but with God all things are possible!

    Reply
    1. Barry Hudock

      @Scott Pluff – comment #5:
      Good point, Scott. I thought the same when I read that. How many official doctrinal, liturgical, and pastoral developments have we seen in the last 50 years that many previously insisted were not theological or pastorally possible?

      Reply
  5. Bob Hayes

    The bishop is probably quite correct.

    Since the election of Pope Francis assorted interest groups ranging from secularist pundits and so-called ‘progressive’ Catholics to conspiracy-obsessed ‘Traddies’ have been fabricating images of the Holy Father to match their various agendas. The forthcoming Synod will almost certainly bring to an end the opportunities to endlessly create and recreate ‘Virtual Francis’.

    Reply
  6. Jim Pauwels

    Something that is theologically possible – ordaining married men to the presybterate – is not pursued except on a very exceptional basis, presumably at least in part because it doesn’t seem pastorally possible, or at least pastorally prudent. Heck, I’ve just been reading here that the view of a majority of bishops is that moving the sign of peace to the Liturgy of the Word isn’t thought to be advisable. Is there a less pastorally explosive issue in the church than that one?

    In this context, it’s hard to imagine that both theological and pastoral obstacles will be surmounted to allow remarried-without-annulments Catholics to receive communion.

    Perhaps it is my American perspective, but from where I sit, the bishops seem a more cautious lot than Francis. Collegiality may not be a recipe for accelerated reform. (Note that this is neither an argument for nor against reforms – just an observation of how church leadership seems to be working these days.)

    Reply
  7. Todd Flowerday

    What happens already, but perhaps not often enough, is Full Communion for prospective Catholics married to a person in a second marriage. It is one thing to insist Catholics adhere to one of two possible traditions. It’s another to insist that non-Catholic baptized Christians do so, especially if they were ignorant of the fine points of canon law long before they explored becoming a Catholic.

    I think if the Family Synod drags its feet on reform, two things might happen:

    1. Pastors might be emboldened in Internal Forum
    2. People will blame the bishops

    I remain hopeful the Holy Spirit will nudge things.

    Reply
  8. Michael O'Connor

    …from where I sit, the bishops seem a more cautious lot than Francis. Collegiality may not be a recipe for accelerated reform.

    Catholic collegiality is a work in progress, still dominated by, and generally reflecting, the centre. If he’s successful, Francis’s real achievement will be to unlock the vision of the bishops, not just get them to toe a different line from before.

    Reply
  9. Paul Inwood

    If they insist on discussing only how to improve communicating the Church’s teaching, rather than the teaching itself and the age in which we live, then it will be a damp squib. But if they remember the lesson of Humanae Vitae….

    Reply
    1. Charles Day

      @Paul Inwood – comment #11:
      I basically agree, but I think to some extent the insisting “on how to improve communicating the Church’s teaching” is perhaps a way that the Holy Spirit moves change. It is not as if no one is aware of the teaching, but if in developing improved communications you start to realize that it can be better for all if adjustments are made, changes can occur. I am not predicting that anything will happen in any particular time frame, but in my lifetime we have have moved from fasting from midnight before receiving Communion to three hours before Communion to one hour. How and why did those changes occur? There was very likely dialogue and “defense of the existing teaching” before there was change.

      So, predicting anything from a particular synod, particularly the demise of Pope Francis’ popularity is foolhardy in my book. Leaders get people (and sheep) to follow; they don’t cram things down your throat. I think most of us understand Francis can’t do too much overnight.

      Reply
  10. Steve Sanchez

    @Charles Day – Comment #12
    But Charles, changing the Church’s discipline regarding the length of the communion fast is far different than changing something essential to the Christian Faith like, Repentance from sin. It’s not just that the Church wants divorcees to repent from the injustices they committed that contributed to the break up of their former marriage, but that they need to repent from the ongoing adultery they are committing while being in a romantic relationship with someone who is not the one with whom they made those binding vows before God and his people on their marriage day. Repentance is essential in Christianity. If people want to do away with this, they might as well chuck the whole thing. Now I am compassionate with people who find themselves in this situation and want to get closer to God. The Church needs to be welcoming to them. But, not at the expense of the basic gospel requirement of repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. If changing their living situation is impossible; then at least they can repent of the physical act of intimacy with the person who is not their spouse. Don’t we still believe in the essence of Christ’s message? “Repent and believe in the gospel, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.”

    But, in regard to the Pope’s popularity, this synod will definitely be a game changer one way or the other. I wager that his compassionate conservatism will become more evident. His doctrinal orthodoxy and charitable liberality will be highlighted for all to see.

    Reply
    1. Charles Day

      @Steve Sanchez – comment #13:
      For the record, my point was not that changing Communion fast times is the same as changing doctrine about divorce and remarriage. The point was that change comes from dialogue guided by the Holy Spirit; Communion fast times was an example to illustrate the point.

      Now let’s dialogue a little:
      You said:
      “It’s not just that the Church wants divorcees to repent from the injustices they committed that contributed to the break up of their former marriage, but that they need to repent from the ongoing adultery they are committing while being in a romantic relationship with someone who is not the one with whom they made those binding vows before God and his people on their marriage day.”

      Injustice is such an intriguingly judgmental word. Is the spouse who has been the victim of physical abuse committing an injustice by divorcing the abuser? If one partner is openly adulterous what “injustice” does the other commit by divorcing the adulterer? How much mental and psychological abuse is needed for an injustice? You don’t add much to a dialogue if all you can do is parrot the party line. Please explain how the party line is just and God’s will.

      Reply
    2. Paul Inwood

      @Steve Sanchez – comment #13:

      they need to repent from the ongoing adultery they are committing while being in a romantic relationship with someone who is not the one with whom they made those binding vows before God and his people on their marriage day.

      You’re assuming that those “vows” are actually binding. Given that many annulments are granted on the grounds of “inability to assume, and incapacity to sustain, the obligations of the married state”, it’s not just black-and-white. In those cases, the Church deems that the sacrament of marriage never in fact existed because one or other partner was simply too immature to undertake it, and that the vows spoken were therefore simply verbiage, words without force.

      Reply
  11. Todd Flowerday

    Treating remarried Catholics is more a matter of politics and determining one less unforgiveable sin. Current practice is one of those inherently Roman, but neither catholic nor orthodox.

    Divorce is a reality. And not all people are called to perpetual celibacy in a second marriage. This insistence cheapens the charism of celibacy. Should a second marriage be sacramental: that is a valid theological question. Imposing Roman practice in this regard on non-Catholics borders on scandal. And it is also a reality that the semi-pelagian tone of handling Communion for perceived sinners is a problem, too, and not something universally recognized in Christian history.

    The pastoral challenge is how to encourage marriages to continue when so many more outlast the ones of any previous era. The energy expended on this is laudable, but out of focus. Too many conservative theologians do not understand marriage, nor do they seem to be concerned about the good health of the Church and its members.

    Reply
  12. Alan Johnson

    Part of the problem to my mind is illustrated by #13.
    There is more to marriage than sex and procreation. It is some celibates’ preoccupation with that particular part of marriage that skews their whole view of the sacrament in my opinion. Maybe some of them should have some long discussions with married friends and relatives about what really matters in a marriage. They might develop a more rounded and healthier viewpoint.

    Reply
    1. Todd Flowerday

      @Alan Johnson – comment #15:
      +1, Alan. I think “preoccupation” is an accurate diagnosis all too often. Sacramental ministry to remarried Catholics is best placed outside of the realm of canon law and properly belongs in the local community: pastors consulting heavily with experienced and mature married couples.

      Reply
  13. john Robert Francis

    Isn’t this October’s extraordinary Synod (presidents of conferences) in a sense a warm-up to the 2015 Synod on the Family (elected representatives of the conferences)? Certainly in two months’ time we should have some possible indications of where the more collegial 2015 Synod could go, but no more.

    Reply
    1. Jim McKay

      @john Robert Francis – comment #18:

      You are correct of course. There is a “two part itinerary” according to the preparatory document. In this year’s synod, the bishops will define the state of the question in light of the experience of bishops from around the world. In the second part, next year, pastoral solutions will be considered.

      I think this year’s will consider questions like the one Steve Sanchez raised. Is every ‘second marriage’ sinful? And next year will offer solutions based on the answers to those questions. The process is meant to avoid the problem of one group offering solutions that presume yes as the answer and another presuming no. (Most of the issues are not as stark as this one.)

      Reply
  14. Jim Howard

    There is a huge difference between the clerical world and the world of the laity that most people live in. Expecting bishops to do anything other than what they have always done is foolish. Vatican II was exceptional in that it recognized that the church needed to be engaged in the world. Unfortunately the documents of Vatican II can be interpreted however a person wants to. So we are left with a church that fights about where we place the tabernacle, how to offer the sign of peace and what is the proper way to receive communion. Meanwhile, most of our people are living lives with real questions where the only thing we seem to say is “If you have to ask, the answer is no.” All of this at a time when we have still not resolved the abuse questions of the last 20 years.

    Reply
    1. Todd Flowerday

      @Jim Howard – comment #21:
      “Expecting bishops to do anything other than what they have always done is foolish.”

      I suppose I’m not ready to give in to the pessimism. I know recovering alcoholics, and I have seen the great grace of conversion in lives once thought to be irretrievable. Is John Nienstedt worse off than Bill W because he’s a bishop? I don’t believe it.

      Reply
  15. Jim Howard

    Don’t get me wrong, there are some wonderful men who are bishops, but collectively they are extremely invested in maintaining the status quo. It pains me that they become mired in church minutia. Effective ministry needs to recognize that like today’s gospel where Jesus encountered the Samaritan women and saw things in a new way, the successors to the apostles must do the same.

    Reply
  16. Irving H Bennett N

    What is shocking to me is the shallow theology of so many, including bishops and cardinals. The points of view expressed are way to provincial in the reality of the universal Church. Look to the new Church reality, Charismatics,The Way, Focolares,Opus Dei,etc. These will bee present an the next session of the synod and the new reality will become evident. Look to the fact that they were not invited to the fits session. Why? Why is it that the younger bishops are more “conservative”? They are of the John Paul generation. There is a difference between look warm Catholics and those who take their faith to heart.

    Reply

Posted

in

,

by

Anthony Ruff, OSB

Tags:

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading