Claims it shows the importance of matrimony!

Vienna’s “Cardinal” Schonborn says he is “Touched” by Sodomites wanting to Get Married

“Cardinal” Schonborn, right, with sodomite activist Gery Keszler, whose union he reportedly blessed

Vienna’s “Cardinal” Christoph Schönborn has opened his impious, blasphemous, and heretical mouth again. The Jan. 31, 2019 edition of the secular German weekly Stern (“Star”) includes a conversation with the Austrian “archbishop”, who is also a member of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Destruction of the Faith and was a major editor of the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church, which was first published in 1992.

Stern is a publication known for including nudity within its pages, and the very fact that Schonborn would grant an interview to a smutty periodical like that amounts to a scandal in its own right. However, what is even worse is the pseudo-Catholic spiritual filth the magazine has now printed thanks to the pseudo-cardinal. The complete interview, conducted by journalist David Baum, can be found on pp. 92-98. A summary with highlights has been posted by Stern here (German only).

In what follows, we will look at some examples of just how Schonborn poisons souls in this most recent interview. For copyright reasons, we have to restrict ourselves to how much text we can quote. All translations are our own.

Two pages from the Schonborn interview in Stern, Jan. 31, 2019

The main theme of the conservation between Baum and Schonborn is the Novus Ordo sex abuse scandal that has been continually in the news again for at least a year.

At one point the conversation turns to the topic of hell. Asked whether the concept of eternal damnation still exists in the Vatican II Church, Schonborn answers: “Of course. It is a possibility.” It is not clear whether he means that it is possible that hell exists at all or that it is simply possible for any individual to go there. Baum brings up the topic because he tries to understand how clerics guilty of abuse can square their evil deeds with belief in everlasting punishment. Schonborn does not respond directly and says rather euphemistically: “I must say this in all seriousness: It endangers their eternal life, of course.”

While for Novus Ordo standards, this would be considered a “conservative” response, inasmuch as he concedes that some people may actually go to hell, or at least not to Heaven, to say that crimes against children or young adults merely “endanger one’s eternal life” is an understatement. Schonborn’s elaboration that such a wicked man “must ask himself how he is going to face his God one day” isn’t exactly a fire-and-brimstone response either. But this is nothing compared to what is to come.

Later in the text, the journalist turns to the question of celibacy, which is a perpetual thorn in the side of a society that worships venereal pleasure. Baum asks: “Do you really believe that celibacy is all that important to Jesus?” Schonborn outrageously answers: “I ask him that a lot.”

Such a challenge by a secularist would have been the perfect opportunity to give testimony (cf. 1 Pet 3:15) to the great virtue of celibacy/ virginity and the many blessings that flow from it, in the face of a generation that is drunk with impurity. Instead, the “cardinal” essentially confirms the interviewer’s doubt and consequently holds the Church and the Faith up to contempt, giving the impression that it is simply an ecclesiastical rule, no different in essence from how many candles ought to be lit during Low Mass.

In 1950, Pope Pius XII explained:

The priest has as the proper field of his activity everything that pertains to the supernatural life, since it is he who promotes the increase of this supernatural life and communicates it to the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Consequently, it is necessary that he renounce “the things of the world,” in order to have care only for “the things of the Lord” [1 Cor 7:32,33]. And it is precisely because he should be free from preoccupation with worldly things to dedicate himself entirely to the divine service, that the Church has established the law of celibacy, thus making it ever more manifest to all peoples that the priest is a minister of God and the father of souls. By his law of celibacy, the priest, so far from losing the gift and duties of fatherhood, rather increases them immeasurably, for, although he does not beget progeny for this passing life of earth, he begets children for that life which is heavenly and eternal.

(Pius XII, Apostolic Exhortation Menti Nostrae, n. 20)

More Catholic explanations and defenses of clerical celibacy can be found in the following magisterial documents:

What is more, we must never forget that it is a dogma of the Catholic Faith that the state of virginity or celibacy is in itself superior to the married state (its denial was one of the heresies of “Saint” John Paul II):

If anyone says that the married state is to be preferred to the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and happier to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be united in matrimony [cf. Matt. 19:11f.; 1 Cor. 7:25f.;28-40]: let him be anathema.

(Council of Trent, Session 24, Canon 10; Denz. 980)

Schonborn, one of the most influential Novus Ordo cardinals in the world, could have given a defense of celibacy, but he decided not to and hid behind the assertion that he, too, poses this question to the Lord.

Asked what Christ answers him, Vienna’s pretend-archbishop says: “I do not receive a clear answer. But Jesus does say very clearly: Be not afraid! In his discourses he emphasizes that we must not place traditions above his principle of loving your neighbor as yourself. For as long as traditions are more important [to us] than the joy of the Gospel, he would say, we are not doing it right.” It’s just too bad that the false cardinal forgot that “the joy of the Gospel” includes Matthew 19:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 7:25-40. Bummer.

A short while later, Mr. Schonborn informs us that it is his conviction that marriage is between a man and a woman open to life. That’s nice, but instead of appealing to his personal conviction — who cares what this man is subjectively convinced of? — he should have appealed to the natural law. It is objective and can be known by the use of reason without divine revelation and is therefore equally discernible by — and equally binding on — all. An appeal to personal conviction is not an argument, and an opponent can easily neutralize it by saying that he does not share this personal conviction. Game over.

The reporter then wants to know why the Catholic Church tries to interfere when the secular government passes laws permitting civil sodomite unions (“gay marriage”). Schonborn responds:

To be honest, we have long accepted that. …If a majority in parliament wants it that way, then the state should do it. But we as Church should be allowed to define it differently and speak up when we believe that the path [thus chosen] is not good for society as a whole. This too must be possible. The Church does not have the sole right of interpretation [Deutungshoheit] — but there is freedom of interpretation; we are permitted — and supposed to — join in the conversation.

Here the false cardinal humiliates the Church before the world. The true Catholic Church can never “accept” that a society should legalize a perversion of marriage. Being the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15), she most definitely has the “sole right of interpretation” with regard to matters of Faith and morals. Schonborn’s request that the Church simply be treated as an equal in the arena of voices and ideas is a capitulation of staggering proportions — but entirely in line with Vatican II.

What a mockery Schonborn makes of the Church — as though the only organization founded by God Himself (see Mt 16:18; 1 Tim 3:15; cf. 1 Cor 15:9) should beg to be admitted as an equal alongside merely human institutions that can propose even the most repulsive of ideas! “Bear not the yoke with unbelievers,” said St. Paul. “For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?” (2 Cor 6:14-15).

The longer the interview goes on, the more outrageous the Austrian wolf-in-shepherds’-clothing gets. He reaches the absolute high point (low point, really) in the following remark, made when Baum asks him what his opinion is of homosexuals who “get married”:

Personally, I find it touching that, at a time when marriage is losing its appeal, cohabiting homosexual couples desire this highest kind of relationship for themselves. They sense the significance of commitment in a relationship. Indirectly, it is a testimony to the importance of matrimony.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is Amoris Laetitia in action! (Remember, Francis himself made Schonborn the official interpreter of his blasphemous exhortation.)

Notice how the Austrian pseudo-Catholic calls holy matrimony the “highest kind of relationship”, in accordance with Amoris Laetitia‘s notion of marriage as merely the ideal of all sorts of other “unions” that fall short although they too have some value because they possess “elements” of matrimony. Marriage isn’t the best possible state of all kinds of “relationships” but a unique life-long union between one man and one woman for the primary purpose of generating and educating children. No other relationship is even like it.

Secondly, sodomite couples who want to “get married” do not, as Schonborn falsely asserts, “desire this highest kind of relationship for themselves.” What they desire has nothing to do with anything that by its nature generates children, nor does it even so much as involve a member of the other sex at all. And as far as seeking “commitment” goes, we are talking about a commitment to mortal sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance — hardly a laudable desire.

Thirdly, to turn the homosexual perversion of holy matrimony into an “indirect testimony” to the importance of marriage is a complete and most revolting reversal of the right order. The words of the prophet Isaias come to mind: “Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” (Is 5:20).

Later in the interview, Schonborn calls himself “an aging hippie” (ein Altachtundsechziger) whose “heart used to beat on the left” (a German way of saying he was a political leftist) and who used to have a lot of doubt with regard to Catholic theology, referring specifically to the years between 1965 and ’68, which he spent in a Dominican monastery near Cologne, Germany.

“When I am with the poor, I am with God”, the pretend-archbishop says towards the end of the conversation, in response to the objection that one need not be a churchgoer in order to help the needy. He finishes by underscoring his apostasy: “I do not care what party or religion people belong to but how they interact with the needy” (emphasis added).

And that sums it up: In the Novus Ordo religion, it’s all about man. God — if He is part of the picture at all — is merely the prop to provide an incentive to focus on man. That right there is the entire Vatican II “gospel” in a nutshell. The Second Vatican Council was the Copernican Revolution in theology — ever since, the ecclesiastical universe has revolved around man.

Embed from Getty Images

Could this smile be devious?

Keep in mind that Schonborn is no dummy. He is a recognized intellectual heavyweight in Novus Ordo Land; he knows exactly what he is saying. Never lose sight of this man’s manifold spiritual crimes, among which we must number his overturning of a pastor’s decision barring an openly practicing sodomite from sitting on the parish council, his encouraging of and participating in the wildest liturgical chaos imaginable (yes, including flame throwers, pornography, and stage diving — we are NOT kidding!), and his permission to give “blessings” to homosexual “couples” on St. Valentine’s Day. Schonborn also once allowed an open atheist, Communist, sexual deviant, and blasphemer to exhibit in the diocesan cathedral museum his “artwork” that displayed the Last Supper as a homosexual orgy. To top it off, Schonborn later granted, through his cathedral rector, a “Catholic” (i.e. Novus Ordo) burial to the Communist blasphemer, complete with a red casket and a pornographic sculpture for a tombstone (see video here). In 2017, he co-hosted a prayer service for AIDS victims together with a blasphemous transvestite inside his own cathedral. Schonborn is also on record lauding as “exemplary human behavior” sodomite couples who “faithfully care” for one another, which jibes perfectly with what we have discussed above. And of course the most recent desecration of St. Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna was this aging hippie’s idea. The man is effectively a Satanist.

The Schonborn interview in Stern comes with a brief postscript which states that the interviewer and his photographer colleague “noticed a Jewish menorah in Schonborn’s office. The competitor religion seems agreeable to him: There was also a book on Jewish humor”.

Enough said.

Image sources: (screenshot) / Stern
Licenses: fair use / fair use

Share this content now:

No Comments

Be the first to start a conversation

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.