English

V prvem delu sem na kratko orisal potek in izhodišča sinode v katoliški Cerkvi v Nemčiji, tokrat se želim znotraj iste tematike osredotočiti na posamičen in v končni fazi ne tako obsežen primer, ki ga je sprožila teologinja Johanna Rahner. Ne gre za središčni dogodek nemške sinode niti ne za nekaj, s čimer bi lahko povzel sinodalno dogajanje. Pač pa bolj za eno izmed podrobnosti, ki pa me v svoji nadrobnosti nagovarja zato, ker ga vidim kot primer, iz katerega lahko razumemo kaj je moč Svetega Duha in ki torej lahko pripomore k boljšemu razumevanju Božje moči. Pa ne samo to, temveč predvsem k bolj zavestni želji po sodelovanju z njo. Teologija Johanna Rahner iz teološke fakultete v mestu Tübingen in predsedujoča Sveta nemških katoliških teoloških fakultet (KThF) je v okviru srečanja ženskega foruma aprila 2021 izrazila svoje prepričanje, ki v končni fazi (sploh kar se tiče medijskega odmeva) izzvenel takole: vsak, ki ni za enake pravice žensk v Cerkvi, ni nič drugega kot rasist. Tezo je uokvirila s stališčem, da namreč ne gre govoriti o enakih pravicah mož in žena v Cerkvi, obenem pa jim jih ne priznati in dati. Msgr. Stefan Oster iz škofije Passau in v medijskem okolju verjetno eden najbolj aktivnih klerikov v Nemčiji, se je na stališča Rahnerjeve odzval hitro in tudi nekoliko čustveno. Med drugim je izrazil svoje stališče takole: kdor v okviru teološkega vprašanje duhovniškega posvečenja žensk govori o rasizmu, in sicer samo zato, ker ima drugačno mnenje kot uradno cerkveno učiteljstvo, je ne samo stvarno zašel, temveč je istočasno tudi omalovažujoč do vseh tistih ljudi, ki so doslej morali ali še vedno morajo zaradi rasizma trpeti preganjanje in smrt. Rahnerjeva je z namenom, da bi te in številne druge medijsko podžgane strasti nekoliko umirila ter kljub vsemu celoviteje podala svoje stališče, ponudila naknadno razlago, da ni imela v mislih vprašanja posvetitve žensk, temveč diskriminacijo žensk v Cerkvi na splošno. Isti škof Oster je ob tem pridal še dvoje precej jasnih stališč, ki so se jih razveselili mnogi katoliki. “Precej prepričan sem, da se v drugih poklicnih krogih ali v medijskih okoljih besedo rasizem nikdar ne uporablja tako nepremišljeno proti lastnim sodelavcem ali službenim nadrejenim”. S tem je izpostavil duha, v katerem je Rahnerjeva izrazila svoje stališče: če že ni šlo za sovražnega duha, je vsekakor šlo za duha, ki povzroča marsikateri šok in torej mnoge rane. Skupaj s tem splošnim človeškim spraševanjem si je postavil bolj notranje cerkveno vprašanje: ali je sploh možno reči, da profesorji teologije, ki se diametralno zoperstavljajo vsebini prejete apostolske vere, poučujejo ali zastopajo katoliško teologijo? Nekoliko manj izrazit, a izjavi teologinje vendar nenaklonjen je bil tudi predsednik nemške škofovske konference, msgr. Georg Bätzing.

Sredi precejšnje razgretosti z vseh strani je škof Oster predvsem pozival k stvarni debati in ne k čustvenemu obmetavanju, ki nikomur ne koristi. Ob takšnem komunikacijskem ozračju se namreč postavlja vprašanje ideologije, ki nikoli ne služi resnici. Po eni strani je dokaj jasno, da je čustvena razgretost z uporabo nasilnih besed v boju proti nečemu slabemu – nič manj kot uničujoča. Z drugo besedo: ideološka, kjer je v celotni zgodbi dosti bolj pomembna vnaprejšnja ideja kot posameznik. Po drugi strani pa na nasprotni strani idejnega spektra, t.j. pri tistih, ki ostajajo zvesti in zavezani katoliškemu izročilu, obstaja podobna ideološka nevarnost, da prejeto izročilo skoraj militantno varujejo ali branijo. Tudi resnica brez ljubezni je namreč hitro ideološka. Obe strani – v končni fazi pa predvsem vsak od nas – sta pred izzivom, v pogovorih iskati resnico, brez da bi pri tem poteptali temelj, ljubezen do bližnjega. Če že ne v nobeni izmed njegovih idej, pa vsaj v njegovem dostojanstvu človeške osebe. In točno to sta na svojem lastnem primeru doživela in pokazala omenjena protagonista. Konec aprila sta podala skupno izjavo, v kateri sta prepoznala vsak svoj del ideološke zaletavosti ter izrazila odprtost za vzajemno spoštovanje kljub različnostim. Johanna priznava, da je z očitkom rasizma po nepotrebnem pripomogla o zaostritvi debate. Štefan priznava, da je Johannin rasizem pograbil pretirano ter ob tem zapadel v grozeči govor. Johanna odstopa od izraza rasizem v debati o ženskah v Cerkvi in se opravičuje za povzročeno sumničenje. Štefan se opravičuje, da je Johannino misel predstavil pavšalno, vse do vprašanja, če je v svoji teologiji sploh še katoliška, zahtevajoč pojasnila. Izjavila sta tudi, da želita s tem dejanjem pokazati, da je iskren pogovor možen tudi sredi razgretega medijskega soočenja.

In s tega vidika je primer nemške sinode zgovoren. Najprej v tem, da lahko Sveti Duh tudi v najbolj nemogoči situaciji obrodi dober sad, v kolikor mu s svojo odprtostjo to dopustimo, priznavajoč svoj del krivde. To zna biti eden najtrših orehov. Nadalje pa tudi v tem, da lahko slehernik zapade v prehitre sklepe in v pretirano gorečnost pri reševanju temeljnih vprašanj. A se to ne zgodi na poti iskanja resnice v ljubezni, temveč sredi ideološkega viharja. Sklep zgoraj opisanih akterjev se mi zdi izredno zgovoren in ključen, saj se osredotočita na iskren pogovor, za katerega je seveda potrebno zaresno srečanje.

English

Holy Spirit in the German synod

In the first part I briefly outlined the course and starting points of the Synod in the Catholic Church in Germany. This time I want to focus on the same topic on an individual and ultimately not a very extensive case initiated by theologian Johanna Rahner. It is not the major event of the German Synod, nor is it something to sum up the synodal happenings. However, even though it might just be a detail, it speaks to me a lot. I see it as an example from which one can understand what the power of the Holy Spirit is and which can therefore help to understand the power of God better. And not only that but above all to a more conscious desire to work with his power. Theology scholar Johanna Rahner from the Theological faculty in Tübingen and chairwoman of the Council of German catholic theological faculties (KThF) expressed her conviction at a meeting of the Women’s Forum in April 2021, which ultimately (as far as media coverage is concerned) sounded like this: the one who is not for the equal rights of women in the Church, is nothing but a racist. She framed her thesis within the position that one cannot question equal rights for men and women in the Church but at the same time not recognize and give them. Msgr. Stefan Oster from the Diocese of Passau reacted to Rahner’s views quickly and also somewhat emotionally. Oster is probably among the German clerics who are the most present in the media. Among other things, he expressed his double point as follows: whoever speaks of racism within the theological question of the priestly ordination of women – and only because he has a different opinion than the official Church teaching – has not only actually gone astray but also belittles all those people who have or still have to suffer persecution and death because of racism. In order to calm down these and many other media passions and present her position more comprehensively, Rahner offered a subsequent explanation. She did not have in mind the very question of women’s ordination but discrimination against women in the Church in general. The same Bishop Oster added two other relatively straightforward positions, which many Catholics welcomed. “I am quite convinced that in other professional circles or the media, the word racism is never used so rashly against one’s colleagues or official superiors.” In doing so, he highlighted the spirit in which Rahner expressed her position. It was undoubtedly a manner that causes many shocks and, therefore, many wounds if it was not an intolerant manner. Along with this general human questioning, he asked himself a more internal ecclesiastical question. Is it even possible to say that professors of theology who utterly oppose the content of the faith received from the apostles – teach or represent a Catholic theology? The President of the German Bishops’ Conference, Msgr. Georg Bätzing was slightly less pronounced but still unfavorable to the theologian’s statement.

Amid this nicely heated situation, Bishop Oster primarily called for an honest debate and not to emotionally throw ourselves on the others – which does not benefit anyone. In such an atmosphere, the question of an ideology that never serves the truth arises. On the one hand, a heated-up debate using violent words to fight against the bad is no less than destructive. It is ideological, meaning that a particular idea is much more important than the human person. On the other hand, on the opposite side of the conceptual spectrum – those who remain faithful and committed to the Catholic tradition – there is a similar ideological danger. They might be tempted to protect or defend the received tradition almost militantly. The truth without love can quickly become ideological. Both sides – and ultimately each of us – face the challenge, seeking the truth in conversations, without trampling on the foundation: to love the neighbor. If not our neighbor’s ideas, then at least his dignity as a human person. Moreover, this is precisely what the protagonists mentioned above experienced and manifested in their case. They made a joint statement at the end of April. They recognized that they were in part ideologically jerky; they also expressed openness to mutual respect despite differences. Johanna admits that by accusing people in the Church of racism, she has unnecessarily helped the debate to escalate. Stefan admits that he grabbed Johanna’s racism excessively and at the same time fell into a threatening speech. Johanna draws back from the term racism in the debate on women in the Church and apologizes for the suspicion caused. Stephen apologizes for presenting Johanna’s thoughts too roughly, all the way to the point of questioning whether she is still Catholic in her theology at all, demanding explanations. They also stated that they wanted to show with this act that an honest conversation is possible even in the middle of a heated media confrontation.

From this point of view, the example of the German Synod is eloquent. The Holy Spirit can bear good fruit even in an impossible situation if we allow him to do so with our openness and acknowledging our share of guilt. It might be one of the toughest nuts to crack. Furthermore, the Synod is a reminder that everyone can fall into the trap of too fast conclusions and excessive zeal in resolving fundamental issues. However, this does not happen while searching for truth in love, but during an ideological storm. The conclusion of the actors described above seems extraordinarily eloquent and crucial, as they focus on an honest conversation, which requires an actual meeting.