30Jun Fascinating development in Austrian Church

John Wijngaards points to some exciting news from Austria where 300 parish priests are openly refusing to comply because of the Church’s lack of reform. They call for ‘disobedience’ in seven key areas. See: http://www.pfarrer-initiative.at/

The seven points are: (John has translated & summarised from the German text):

1. In every Church service they will say a public prayer for Church reform.
2. They will not refuse communion to well-meaning Christians. These may include divorced and remarried, members of other Churches, at times people who have left the Church.
3. They will avoid saying multiple masses in many centres. They will prefer services conducted by people themselves to artificial supply services.
4. From now on they will call a service of the word with distribution of holy communion a ‘eucharistic celebration without a priest’. This will fulfil the Sunday duty.
5. They will ignore the preaching prohibition imposed on competent lay people.
6. They will see to it that each parish has a lay chairperson: a man or woman, married or not. This to counter the joining up of parishes and of projecting a new priestly image.
7. (MOST INTERESTING!) They will use every opportunity to publicly promote the admission of women and married men and women to the priestly ministry — seeing in both men and women welcome colleagues in our pastoral ministry.

4 Responses

  1. Brendan Peters

    Glory, glory, Hallelujah!!!!!

  2. Brendan Peters

    Glory, glory, hallelujah!!!

  3. Christine Szczepanski

    This sounds a really great idea!! I hope more people join them.

  4. Gerard Flynn

    Fr Coyle, can you explain how, in your medical analogy, in relation to the admission of women and married men to the priesthood, you believe you are comparing like with like?

    A nurse or a para-medic is not trained to carry out surgery. But, they could easily be trained to do so.

    What has that got to do with the ordination of women and married men?

    John Wijngaards, has taken a principled stance on an issue. While not every one would agree with him, his action is at least an indication of integrity on his part. In this case, he is merely a messenger. So your ad hominem slur on his good name is simply a case of shooting the messenger.