While one German cardinal accused politicians of offending Christ himself, another German cardinal said he felt ashamed by what the other cardinal had said.
Let us start from the very beginning: One third of German-speaking theologians recently published an appeal called ‘Church 2011. An appeal for a new beginning’. (In the next couple of weeks I will reproduce extracts from this document in my blog on timesof malta.com ).
Among other things, the German theologians urged their bishops to introduce sweeping reforms, including the ordination of married men and the ordination of women.
It is not the first time a group of theologians suggested that the Church should study anew whether the priesthood – in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church – should be only available to celibate men.
In 1970, nine German theologians had published a memorandum urging the German bishops to appeal to Pope Paul VI to seriously examine the celibacy rule, as there was a shortage of priests. The theologian Joseph Ratzinger was one of the signatories.
A number of Catholic politicians had waded into the debate a few days before the theologians.
The president of the Bundestag, Norbert Lammert, and the Education Minister, Annette Schavan, quoted the same reason as Ratziner et al, that is, shortage of priests, as a good enough reason for the Pope to consider allowing the ordination of proven married men.
Cardinal Walter Brandmüller blew his top. In a letter published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, he attacked the politicians: “You don’t seem to have realised that you have offended Jesus Christ, the Son of God. A priest who lives a celibate life does nothing more than adopt his Master’s lifestyle as his own.”
He accused politicians of wanting a schism and a national church.
Cardinal Karl Lehmann, 74, who for many years presided over the German bishops’ conference, said he was ashamed by the tone of Cardinal Brandmüller’s letter.
In his opinion, the question of the ordination of married men should be openly discussed during the “dialogue process” the German bishops have planned.
He said the politicians’ comments could not be construed as either an appeal for a national church or schism.
Some will be scandalised by this exchange. Others will be disgusted that I give all this space for such exchanges. On the contrary, I feel thrilled, as such exchanges are a clear sign of an open, active and dynamic Church.
This is a Church that does not shy away from public debate. The bishops and the theologians lead the debate.
Such an open attitude is lacking in the Church in Malta. Many still feel contrasting ideas are a sign of division and weakness. There are lively debates behind some close doors, such as the Senate of priests. But the number of laity, priests and religious who take part in public debate is generally small, unless their participation is of an apologetic nature.
Public opinion inside the Church has been privatised. Even some of the consultation fora fail in this regard.
The annual diocesan assembly, for example, is not preceded by a document critically analysing the work done by various bodies as compared to clearly specified objectives announced in advance.
The best that one can say of this document is that it is a half-baked PR write-up. No serious analysis, criticism or evaluation is made.
I much prefer the German model of an open Church than our model which, like political parties, says nice things in public but rarely frontally confronts the demons that assail it and the warts that distort her face.
joseph.borg@um.edu.mt