Edit: Vienna's Archdiocese is stonewalling, no pun intended, conservative pastors who are trying to keep parish committees from being stacked with un-Catholic elements.
 |
| Pornography Cardinal! |
In the case of the homosexual parish council member of Stützenhofen, whom the parish pastor then rejected , only to be overturned by the Cardinal of Vienna, wasn't just a single incident.
(kreuz.net) On May 3rd the
Viennese homosexual pornography Cardinal Christoph Schönborn annuled the parish council election in Penzig.
This was reported by the Pastor there-- Fr. Christian Sieberer -- in an open letter on the parish website 'pfarre-penzig.at'.
Pastor Sieberer well known throughout Austria for his media work.
The annulment followed as a result of a so-called 'Expert Committee Parish Council -- Electoral Advisory of Vicariats in the City of Vienna'.
It was concerned with the election on March 18th. This had considerable consequences.
The Archdiocese of Vienna Explains: The Pastor has the Right of Veto
On the 20th of January Pastor Sieberer spoke in a long telephone meeting about the possibility of a pastor to reject unsuitable candidates.
The Cardinal then explained that a pastor has a right of veto to reject according to his opinion, which he doesn't need to substantiate.
He promised to address the question with the Prefect of the Clergy, Cardinal Mauro Piacenza.
On February 9th Pastor Sieberer received a written answer of the Viennese Ordinariat Chancellor, Prelate Walter Mick.
The Chancellor of the Ordinariat confirmed the right of veto.
He also cited an example where candidates will not fulfill the prescriptions for the right of veto.
The Pastor Used his Confirmed Right of Veto
Pastor Sieber used his right of veto confirmed in writing.
He explained n February 15th that there were objections raised against three people.
These candidates were not placed on the election list.
The Cardinal Breaks His Word
On the 23rd of February the Episcopal Vicar Dariusz Schutzki suddenly requested a reason for the veto of the pastor.
Fr. Sieberer began an "drawn out research", why he had to substantiate his veto.
He found that Cardinal Schönborn had changed his opinion through his Episcopal Vicar.
The Pastor conceded "as a sign of good will".
He offered a thorough reason.
The General Vicar Announced: Forego Unsuitable Candidates
On the 13th of March the Episcopal Vicar Schutzki cited a discussion with the Viennese General Vicar, Nikolaus Krasa.
In the discussion Fr. Sieberer learned that the persons, against whom he had exercised his right of veto, will "probably" have their candidacy forgone.
The election must take place in any case, on the 18th of March.
On the 14th of March the Pastor informed the General Vicar Schutzki by telephone that the number of the twelve chosen candidates had to be reduced to nine, ten or eleven persons.
Election Advisory Confirms Proposals in Last Seconds
One hour later Fr. Sieberer received an e-mail from the Episcopal Vicar that the number of the chosen will be confirmed at nine.
That was not until six hours before the initial end of the nomination.
Pastor Sieberer announced as quickly as possible the candidates and that the election would take place.
The management of the election hired an attorney outside of the parish.
Because the Diocesan direction had given its final confirmation so lately, Father Sieberer could not make certain preparations as director holding the election board.
For that reason a timely announcement of the election and a correct presentation of the candidates was foregone.
Fr. Sieberer simply proceeded, assuming that his thoroughly justified veto against the candidature of three persons was valid.
Because: The Diocesan direction had never told him otherwise.
Considering that, the Pastor went on the discussion with the General Vicar that the three people concerned would "probably" have their candidacy rejected.
What about an election committee that errs in its own form?
Finally, the parish committee election was annulled because of defects in form.
The short-term confirmation of the number of the candidates by the Vicariate Election Advisory had been unlawful.
Fr. Sieberer countered that the lack of form had been "solely the responsibility of the Diocesan direction and the Vicariate Election Committee".
But: "Probably no one in the Parish of Penzing will understand, why we needed this illegal proceeding >>on our backs<< [Auf unsre Kappe], with all of the expense and the agitation about the election being postponed an indeterminate amount of time."
Fr. Sieberer asked what the purpose of a Vicariate Election Advisory, "when this did not note procedural errors, which it considered after the election as >>massive deficiencies and errors<<."
He would have expected that those responsible in the Archdiocese as experts of their own proposed guidelines:
"I especially would have thought, that all the pretense of an election committee over the requirements of form can be dispensed."
In any case Pastor Sieberer is filing an appeal against the annulment in Rome.
He has also advised that he will file his veto against the unsuitable candidates in the next electin as well.
Link to original kreuz.net....
