Something is rotten with the state (of the Church) in Germany

I stumbled upon a link from Supertradmum through the blog - Ethereldasplace - which I highly recommend. The post was titled " Aren't "pre-marital unions" fornication? Moving out of the Church....." and linked to a Catholic News Service piece called "Surveys: German, Swiss Catholics reject many church teachings on family", written by one Cindy Wooden. I later learned that the Catholc News Service is owned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

I had determined to find out who owned the outlet because the piece made me suspicious and I wanted to find out if the author had an agenda. It turns out I was being unfair on Miss/Mrs. Cindy Wooden, because all of the questionable statements had actually been direct quotations from the German Conference of Catholic Bishops' "Summary of the responses from the German dioceses and archdioceses to the questions contained in the preparator". If I can fault her for anything, it is that she did not link to the document because this meant I was forced to spend considerable time trying to locate the English translation of the summary. Had it not been for the Web browser's translate function, I might never have found it since the English version of the German bishops' conference leaves a lot to be desired.

The report makes for grave reading, and that is the subject of much of my post. My complaint is with both the content and the style of the summary. Before that, in the interest of fairness, I would just like to quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church some sections which I deem relevant.  For sake of completeness, and to avoid the accusation of seletivity, the qutations are rather long.

On the natural law:

1954 ...The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie...
1955 The "divine and natural" law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life.... Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called "natural," not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature...
1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties...
1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history...

On marriage:

1603 "The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage."87 The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics...

1605 Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone."92 The woman, "flesh of his flesh," his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a "helpmate"; she thus represents God from whom comes our help.93 "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."94 The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been "in the beginning": "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."

1614 In his preaching Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning permission given by Moses to divorce one's wife was a concession to the hardness of hearts.106 The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it "what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder."107
1615 This unequivocal insistence on the indissolubility of the marriage bond may have left some perplexed and could seem to be a demand impossible to realize. However, Jesus has not placed on spouses a burden impossible to bear, or too heavy - heavier than the Law of Moses.108 By coming to restore the original order of creation disturbed by sin, he himself gives the strength and grace to live marriage in the new dimension of the Reign of God. It is by following Christ, renouncing themselves, and taking up their crosses that spouses will be able to "receive" the original meaning of marriage and live it with the help of Christ.109 This grace of Christian marriage is a fruit of Christ's cross, the source of all Christian life.
1646 By its very nature conjugal love requires the inviolable fidelity of the spouses. This is the consequence of the gift of themselves which they make to each other. Love seeks to be definitive; it cannot be an arrangement "until further notice." The "intimate union of marriage, as a mutual giving of two persons, and the good of the children, demand total fidelity from the spouses and require an unbreakable union between them."

1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."

2357 ... Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection
2373 Sacred Scripture and the Church's traditional practice see in large families a sign of God's blessing and the parents' generosity.

2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.174 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.175Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:...

2390 In a so-called free union, a man and a woman refuse to give juridical and public form to a liaison involving sexual intimacy....The expression covers a number of different situations: concubinage, rejection of marriage as such, or inability to make long-term commitments.183 All these situations offend against the dignity of marriage; they destroy the very idea of the family; they weaken the sense of fidelity. They are contrary to the moral law. The sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes a grave sin and excludes one from sacramental communion.
2391 Some today claim a "right to a trial marriage" where there is an intention of getting married later. However firm the purpose of those who engage in premature sexual relations may be, "the fact is that such liaisons can scarcely ensure mutual sincerity and fidelity in a relationship between a man and a woman, nor, especially, can they protect it from inconstancy of desires or whim."184 Carnal union is morally legitimate only when a definitive community of life between a man and woman has been established. Human love does not tolerate "trial marriages." It demands a total and definitive gift of persons to one another.

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

2400 Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage.

The list is by no means exclusive, not even from the Catechism, and it could certainly be made much longer when quoting from official Church documents and the Church fathers. However, it is enough to provide a sufficient context for the mess that is the Catholic Church in Germany.

In the interest of clarity, I must admit that I very much distrust much of the Catholic Church in Germany; it seems as though every time we have news from there it is something negative, a bishop or a lay commision trying to push the bounds of conformity and sneak in apostasy through the back door, and not so infrequently through the front. Unfortunately, the situation in Germany is by no means unique, although the Germany apostasy seems in many cases to be bolder than most.

I have met quite a few German Catholics. Living as I do in Sweden, we are exposed to many of the ideas of the German church because Sweden is very mush mission territory and for better or worse, much of that mission is funded and carried out by the Catholic Church in Germany. My general impression from my German acquaintants is that the German Church is rebellious, and largely bereft of any foundation in authentic Catholicism - either in its philosophy or its creed. This is an impression which has been re-inforced virtually every time I have spoken with lay people from Germany, including a seminarian.

I divulge this because I wish to make it clear that my natural instinct upon hearing about developments in the Church in Germany is to think "here we go again, with friends like those, who needs enemies?" This instict may cloud my judgement, although I hope not too much, since it has only been shaped by real events in Germany and not some pre-conceived idea that I entertained before I took interest.

The summary of the responses is only 18 pages long, so I would certainly recommend that you read it - it's quite an easy read.

One major problem with the survey is - just as I had highlighted when news of the survey came out - the fact that it is practically impossible to know who the survey is addressing and exactly what the intention is. It is my understanding that the survey was actually meant for priests - and possibly deacons who are in active ministry. Some conferences decided to make this survey open to all, and I failed to see the point of that. Clearly the Germans did this as well, since we are told that the responses "include statements by experts and specialist bodies, elaborations in councils at the various levels, ranging through to random surveys among individuals as well as online surveys, followed by an appropriate statistical evaluation" (page 1). This creates a real problem because many times we don't know exactly who has expressed the opinion.

For instance, many times it seems as though the summary gives the impression of speaking for the non-clergy whenever it is taking a tone that pits itself against the teachings of the one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.  In other times, it speaks from a third-party position, leaving the priests out of the equation altogether. This is especially the case when the questionnaire asks for solutions. Since the questionnaire implies that the respondent (a priest) should offer a solution on how to better shepherd his flock, the summary completely avoids all recommendations which would pin any responsibility on the bishops or the priests. It does use the word "pastoral" a lot though.

My main impression of this summary is that it shows triumphalism where it should show contrition. The results are very clear - the shepherds have failed! However, instead of offering solutions or proposals as to how they can better face up to the responsibility that has been granted to them, they authors seem to be far more interested in giving the impression that what is asked of them is unrealistic: "We told you holiness wouldn't work, now you give us something we can work with!", is pretty much the tone of the document, although not in those words. It is akin to a student running towards his teacher after failing each and every question on a physics exam and proudly proclaiming, "I told you I would not be able to pass the exam without studying. Now here are my preferred answers; go and see if you can find questions which fit them, and if you can't do that you might try looking into changing the laws of physics since the traditional laws of physics are unrealistic! "

What follows now is a series of statements from the document and my reflections on the tone, style and content. It is my sincere belief that anybody who is concerned about spreading the Gospel should be worried by what he/she reads in this document, not merely from what the results clearly show, but especially from the complicity of the shepherds which is so evident in  the document. Remember, this is a publication from the German conference of Catholic bishops!

Already on page 2 we have the summary telling us that most people consider the Church's "sexual morality to be unrealistic" and "there is a lack of willingness to approach them" because the Church's statements are made at an "universal level".  That is just another way of saying, "if only God had known how I feel, I am sure He would have made the laws of nature differently " (although fortunately the survey doesn't express it in quote those words. The Church's sexual ethics "are virtually never accepted, or are expressly rejected in the vast majority of cases." This is not so suprising tiven that already here the survey admits that "Catholic perception of the family is only referred to in sermons in isolated cases." Perhaps there is a connection between the two?

Then we have  "the Church’s refusal to recognise homosexual unions in societal and legal terms is furthermore understood as constituting discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation (page 4)." This is, of course, true, and indeed we are called to discriminate between right and wrong behaviour, and in favour of the right." Sexual orientation" is not Church-speak, and is not likely to be found in any Church documents. That would be conceding too much to the idea that people are born into the slavery of their sexual urges. On the idea that "most people are unable to follow the language and content of the theological statements" I can only assert that it is not for most people to read theological arguments, but rather their pastor's job to explain it. I don't see why it should take an advanced theological degree to understand "though shall not commit adultery", but then again, I take words at face value.

It is interesting that the Germany law "speaks of parents’ “natural” right to care for and bring up their children" (page 4) given how tough the German state is on home-schoolers, and it is my understanding that the German Church has not unequivocally come down on the side of home-schooling parents, which is a bleeding shame.

This one really riled me! "The attitudes of a majority of people with regard to important questions on marriage and the family are de facto contradictory to traditional-type natural law" (page 5). Is there a new kind of natural law? Remember that article 1958 of the Catechism states emphatically that "The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history". "A more personally argumentative foundation" is better suitded to the people of today, the document goes on to insist, to which my initial response was, in the words of Sarah Palin "How is that working out for ya'?"...The idea that something has to appeal personally to me is a heresy if ever there was one.

Then we have the idea that "a blessing of the couples -  without asking as to the marriage consensus as required by canonical law - might be a suitable form" in response to how to deal with people who obstinately refuse to follow what the Church and Christ Himself teaches. Evidently, to the Germany Church, the solution is to dispense with all notion of sin and just go ahead and bless the very things that deny us santifying grace, even the diabolical.

I was really surprised to learn that "the marriage preparation talk with the local priest or his representative is obligatory for all who wish to marry" (page 6). That is a good thing, although the German Church does not seem to share my opinion on that.

On page 7 we learn that upon the death of close relatives, " the fundamental Christian stance of hope becomes a central topic." I wonder how many Germans know of the 4 last things, have ever even heard of them, and how many of them would consider them discriminatory, impersonal or what not. Clearly many of the German Catholics do not believe in God as He has revealed Himself to us, so I must ask myself, what is the basis of their hope? On the basis of the responses, I would imagine that most German Catholics have been taught the heresy of universal salvation.

One thing I found alarming is that "when it comes to transimitting the faith", parents "delegate this topic to institutions such as kindergarten, the local church and school" (page 7). At this point I would simply like to point out that the Church teaches that parents are the primary educators of children (articles 2221-2229). No parent who holds the Christian faith precious would delegate it to anyone else.

"Many German bishoprics now hold central anniversary celebrations offering thanks for couples after many years of marriage which are attended by the bishop" (page 9) That actually pleased me and got me thinking that perhaps it is not all rotten in Germany.

That was until I read that "many in fact consider it irresponsible to marry without living together beforehand" (page 9), with eastimates of "between 90% and 100%" being given for those who choose to do so. Any estimate will always be between something and 100% and my guess is that the 100% figure is chosen by heterodox priests or respondents who have an agenda. I would have to ask, 100% of what? I can only refer to article 2390 of the Catechism to show how grave a sin people are committing by doing this. Not only are they in all likelihood breaking the 6th commandment, but they are also causing grave scandal.

We are told that 1 in 3 marriages in Germany ends in divorce although the situation is a bit better for Catholics, but not by much (page 9). The number of Germans still getting married is quite high though - as we are told that 87% of natural couples living together in a household in 2012 were married, and that is quite pleasing.

We are then told that "people  in fact emphatically reject the terms “regular” and “irregular”" when it comes to their marriage situations, and those in irregular situations feel "discriminated against and marginalised" (page 10). By whom, I wonder? It is eminently clear, what the Church teaches, and in an effort to prevent the faithful - and I use that word loosely - from bringing damnation to themselves, the Church insist that people not in spiritual communion with the Church also abstain from receiving Holy Communion. I am also curious at the use of the word "sacraments" since to the best of my knowledge, the German Church has made it very clear that the only thing which breaks communion is not paying the Church tax, so the only other sacrament I can imagine being withheld is burial, if the deceased has caused grave scandal. Somehow, I doubt that is one canon that is enforced in Germany so I really have to wonder what they meant with the notion that people are excluded from "the sacraments". Furthermore, people can only exclude themselves from the sacraments through their own action. If people are not willing to live by the teachings of the Church then they are in effect already excluded from communion what the Church really is - the body of Christ - and I don't see why they should insist on maintaining some outward communion.

We are told that people "frequently consider an annulment procedure to be dishonest" because "they do not regard their marriages, which may have lasted for years in many cases, as “null and void”, but as having failed" (page 11). For once, I am in complete agreement with them! Much of the annulment system is grossly dishonest, and needs to be overhauled. I simply fail to see how the very serious and limited caveat given by Christ on why a marriage may be dissolved can be used to justify the annulment of so many marriages, and even more so when it is obligatory for people to attend marriage preparation talk. Even by the loose standards of the post-Vatican II Church, surely we cannot claim that people who have attended a marriage preparation class do not know that marriage is supposed to be indissoluble and open to children, nor can they claim an annulment based on immaturity (a criteria I found deeply suspicious) or that they did it due to duress and thereby lacked free consent. So I am in complete agreement that the annulment process is by and large a sham, and needs to be severly restricted to only those cases which fulfill the very strenuous criteria set by our Lord, and which are still taught by the Church, I should add - officially anyway.

The very next line though makes any agreement I had with the Germans fleeting, since they "expect the Church to enable them to start again in a new relationship, for instance in analogy to the practice of the Orthodox Churches." Isn't it strange how people only bring the Orthodox into it when they Orthdox have fallen off the path? It is only when people want something loosened that they look to the Orthodox for validation, and never in those areas where the Orthodox are more firm.

There "is a practice of autonomously going to receive the sacraments. There is also a common practice of re-admission to the Eucharist, as a rule preceded by a talk with the pastor." In other words, there is a practice of grave disobedience to the words of our Lord and his apostles.

We are told that the German Church rejects legal recognition of same-sex unions in a round-about way, which is still less than they should doing, then that there is a "tendency among German Catholics to regard the legal recognition of same-sex civil partnerships and their equal treatment vis-à-vis marriage as a commandment of justice." Clearly, the German Church has been skipping over the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, for their nothion of justice is markedly different from the one in the Bible. Strangely though, "opening of marriage as such for same-sex couples, by contrast, is largely rejected." I wonder how.

I am intrigued by the notion that "Unequal treatment of such children is vehemently rejected" (page 12) - referring to children exposed to same-sex unions. It's interesting because, as I have pointed out before, in Germany the rule is "Pay your church tax and all is well!" I have no idea why else one would forbid children from being baptised if their parents don't pay the tax, and baptising them (presumably without a well-founded hope that they will be raised Catholic - the demand placed by canon law) even when the parents' sexual relationships are an affront to God Himself.

Humanae Vitae is only know among the older generation (page 14) but at least the "vast majority o Catholics are against abortion". It is not surprising that the Germans should be unaware of what Humane Vitae taught given their bishops rejected it long ago - when it was released. Fewer than 3% favour natural family planning, and we are told that many do it for medical reasons (page 15). They reject the distinction between natural and articifial birth control methods, and therefore do not consider using artificial contraception as a valid reason to present oneself for the sacrament of penance, or refrain from the sacrament of the Eucharist (page 15).

The summary completely avoids proposing solutions to the question "How can a more open attitude towards having children be fostered? How can an increase in births be promoted?" (page 15). To be honest, I am not at all surprised since it seems promoting a Christian way of life seems to be the last thing on the minds of the respondents, or at least those who composed the summary.

We are told that people "notice for themselves that their faith from their childhoold is no longer viable" (page 17), to which I could only respond with "So stop the clown masses then!"

The concluding remarks are an advocacy for chanding the Church's teaching and urgin the Church to listen to people at grassroots level - urging the Church to involve married couples and families in the deliberations. As I noted previously, it is difficult to know what was the opinion of clerics (the intended respondents) and what is the opinion of lay people with an agenda. Much of the time it seems as though the document is composed by clerics with an agenda against Church teaching anyway.

What really upsets me is this: "Germany has almost 9,200 Catholic kindergartens, 686 general schools and 219 vocational schools" (page 13). "Moreover, almost all the Federal Länder have denominational religious instruction in schools". With over 10,000 educational centres, and opportunities for religious instruction, we cannot in any way shape or form claim that the Catholic Church in Germany lacks either the means, or the opportunity, or the funds (thanks to their simoniacal church tax) to reach out to the Catholic faithful and the society at large. Surely, if the Church is not getting its message across, it is because it is refusing to pronounce it! There can simply be no other reason for the collapse of the Christian faith in Germany, to be replaced by a "practical agnosticism" as the survey calls it, or a practical atheism, as I would call it. If the parents have delegated the topic of the faith to the Church (page 7), then it seems fair to note that the Church has decided to delegate it to Rome and to Vatican documents, then turning around and insisting that the general population cannot understand these documents because they are too theologically-minded.

So we now have the German bishops and many of the clergy urging us to do more of the same, and maybe if we bend the rules enough, people will follow them, although quite why one would follow the Church when it gives you nothing back - no spiritual growth, no teachings of Christ to differentiate yourself from the culture at large - is anyone's guess. Frankly, I don't think the German bishops on the whole care much, and I think this survey more than proves it. There is no urgency in their words, no disappointment that the liberating message of Christ is being lost in all the noise. No, what they want is to drown out Christ, turn up the noise, and say that since Christ is everywhere, He must be found in large part in the noise as well - or something like it.

As they (must) say in Germany, "pay the Church tax and all is well, or at least it will be if you ignore Christ and go along with what everyone else does!"