Germany: Liberal Theologians = Dying Church

From InsideCatholic.com:

In The Joys of Yiddish, Leo Rosten defined chutzpa as “presumption-plus-arrogance such as no other word, and no other language, can do justice to” and then offered classic examples of chutzpa in action: “Chutzpa is that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan. A chutzpanik may be defined as the man who shouts ‘Help! Help!’ while beating you up.”

Leo Rosten should have lived to experience German Catholic theologians of the early 21st century.

In anticipation of Pope Benedict XVI’s forthcoming visit to his homeland, more than 200 German theologians -- men and women who have earned doctoral degrees in theology and teach in German universities -- have issued a manifesto, “The Church in 2011: A Necessary Departure.” The manifesto itself does not identify the destination for which the Church is to depart, but the terminus ad quem seems reasonably clear from a careful reading of the document: Catholicism is to transform itself into another liberal Protestant sect by conceding virtually every point at issue between classic Christianity and the ambient culture of the postmodern West.

It is, perhaps, no surprise to find German Catholic theologians publicly supporting the ordination of married men and women to the ministerial priesthood (overtly), same-sex “marriage” (slyly), and full communion within the Church for those in irregular marriages (subtly but unmistakably). These causes have been espoused for years. German theologians dissented en masse from the 1993 teaching of Veritatis Splendor on the nature of moral acts and from the 1994 teaching of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on the Church’s inability to admit women to Holy Orders. What was particularly striking about this new manifesto was its attempt to address serious problems with tried-and-failed solutions. That bespeaks a remarkable lack of intellectual creativity and historical sense.

Thus we are told that the German sexual abuse cases that came to light in 2010 have “plunged the Catholic Church in Germany into an unequaled crisis.” Really? I understand, and in many respects sympathize with, German complaints about the ubiquity of references to the National Socialist period whenever anything German is discussed. But was 2010 really a crisis greater than that in which German Catholicism found itself between Hitler’s 1933 accession to power and Nazi Germany’s defeat in 1945? (Do today’s Catholics face crises of conscience greater than those faced by Count Claus von Stauffenberg or Sophie Scholl?) Moreover, what about the crisis of faith that emptied German churches over the past two generations, such that weekly Mass attendance in urban areas hovers around 5-10 percent?

The manifesto is also notable for its failure to examine academic consciences, an exercise that might have led to more measured assessments of responsibility for the current situation. Do these theologians imagine that they and their teachers bear no responsibility for the “paralysis and resignation” they deplore in German Catholicism? Does German theology’s tendency to treat the Bible as a specimen to be dissected rather than a gift to be studied with a full array of interpretive tools (including the eyes of faith) have nothing to do with today’s crisis of faith in a land whose very language was formed by Luther’s biblical translation? Has the theologians’ bizarre notion that “freedom of conscience” means abject surrender to the sexual revolution in all its demands had nothing to do with the Church’s failures to convert a hedonistic culture?

Few of these academics have any serious or sustained connection to the liturgical or pastoral life of the Church; yet they assume they occupy a privileged position from which to understand what has happened to German Catholicism and how its genuine problems can best be addressed. Why?

Seeking a rousing conclusion to their call to the ecclesiastical barricades, the German theologians advise their fellow Catholics that they should “look to the future with courage and walk on water, like Peter as Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you have fear? Is your faith so weak?’” A question to the professors: Would each of you who believes that Peter walked on water please raise your hand?

There is nothing particularly Catholic about any of this. Rather, it’s what we call the“established church syndrome,” and it most certainly applies to “Mainstream Protestantism” in the United States (which is no longer mainstream).

Relgious organizations that take for granted that a fair number of people will come through the doors (either out of habit, or because they have no choice) lose missionary zeal. They become places where people wanting a cozy sinecure go for a career.

They crave “mainstream” acceptance, which means they shy away from (and soon enough, actively oppose) ideas of which the secular media and secular academia disapprove, such as belief in miracles or Christian views on sexual morality.

Catholicism, of course, is heterogeneous, and parts of the Church have avoided this curse — the campus ministries at Texas A & M and the University of Wisconsin, Madison, for example.

And some parts of the world are producing large numbers of men and women going into religious vocations, a phenomenon that seems to have coincided with the tenure of John Paul II as Pope.

Marquette, unfortunately, resembles Germany more than places where Catholicism thrives. It’s not the fault of the Theology Department, which is reasonably faithful. It’s more the fault of a politically correct Campus Ministry, campus bureaucrats and a heavily secular faculty.

And the fact that students come here socialized more by the mass media than by the Church (and indeed, only a minority of freshmen will now call themselves Catholic) doesn’t help either.

Secular Intolerance in Europe: Scientology

It seems that Tom Cruise is not allowed to film in a certain location in Germany because of his religious beliefs.

He is a Scientologist.

Tom Cruise has been banned from making a film in Berlin about a plot to kill Adolf Hitler because the German government says his belief in Scientology is akin to Nazism.

The Hollywood star is set to play Count Claus von Stauffenberg, who almost succeeded in assassinating the Nazi leader in 1944.

The project is due to start production next month but the Germans fear Cruise will use the film, which he is co-producing, as a public relations vehicle for Scientology, which many of the country’s politicians have compared to Nazism.

The German government claims it masquerades as a religion to make money, a charge Scientology leaders reject.

The country has fought against the sect for a decade. It is even under observation by the Federal Agency for the Protection of the Constitution, a body that usually hunts spies, terrorists and neo-Nazis.

One of Germany’s few war heroes, Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg had been deeply opposed to the Nazis’ treatment of the Jews and planted a briefcase bomb under a table near Hitler in his Wolf’s Lair headquarters on July 20, 1944. The bomb went off but only wounded the Fuehrer.

Two hundred of his conspirators were also arrested and killed.

German Defence Minister Franz-Josef Jung has ruled that Cruise should not be allowed to film in the inner courtyard of his ministry where von Stauffenberg was shot.

A Defence Ministry spokesman said: “The film makers will not be allowed to film at German military sites if Count Stauffenberg is played by Tom Cruise, who has publicly professed to being a member of the Scientology cult.

“In general, the German military has a special interest in the serious and authentic portrayal of the events of July 20, 1944 and Stauffenberg as a person.”

Of course, he has no evidence that the portrayal will be anything less than serious and authentic.

We have no problem with calling Scientology a cult.

We have a huge problem with any government deciding what is a cult and what isn’t, and discriminating against “cult members.”

While the word “cult” might, in principle, have some objective definition that distinguishes between a cult and a church and a movement, in practice a “cult” is a religious movement one happens to dislike.

We have heard of liberal women who label as “male cult” any religion that doesn’t ordain women as ministers. And any religion that takes its beliefs too seriously (with “too seriously” judged by secular people) is going to be called a cult.

Further, people have every right to join a cult -- a real cult that we and the secularists would agree is a cult.

This is just another example of the secular intolerance of Europe.