Prof. Werner Münch, former Prime Minister: "It's enough now, Bishop Bätzing!"
"Bätzing seems to be completely indifferent to a split in the Catholic Church, which has meanwhile also long since occurred." Guest commentary by Werner Münch
Bonn (kath.net) Not long ago, numerous believers breathed a sigh of relief when Cardinal Marx announced that he would resign as chairman of the DBK and thus also out of the synodal path. Many members of the committees in which they had anything to do with him were relieved, because too often they had to endure the exaggerated, often angry and uncontrolled outbursts of their chairman.
A media wave of praise and sympathy preceded Bishop Georg Bätzing of Limburg, who was appointed to succeed Cardinal Marx for both offices. His leadership qualities have been described as engaging, forgiving, and balancing. If we use this as a benchmark for his previous term in office and judge it critically, then we must come to the conclusion that we have heard fairy tales. Bätzing works like a political functionary, and it is no coincidence that the people who work with him compare his methods to "disciplinarian Herbert Wehner". He is convinced of himself, resistant to advice and unteachable. When it comes to his ideas for realizing the "right" goals of the synodal path, even Pope Francis is not taken seriously. When in his letter to the "pilgrim people of God in Germany" he called for a new evangelization as the main goal of the synodal path, he received the cynical answer from Bätzing that that was exactly the program of the synodal path, which, like everything else, which as everyone knows, isn’t true. As proof: When Bishop Voderholzer and a few other bishops made a motion at the 1st Synodal Assembly to set up such a forum, this request was rejected. Bätzing seems completely indifferent to a split in the Catholic Church, which has long since happened.
Other examples that prove that he lacks any form of self-criticism should be mentioned without claiming to be complete:
1. Bätzing tried several times publicly, to accuse Pope em. Benedict XVI of lying - even after his employees had long confessed that they had made a mistake in one point of Benedict’s research and that Benedict had publicly apologized for it. The aim of this attack by Bätzing was to prove that Benedict was partly to blame for the failure to deal with the abuse when he was bishop in Munich, which failed miserably.
2. Bätzing gave free rein to his impatience in the case of Cardinal Woelki, whom he regarded as his determined opponent in the synodal path, by publicly urging the pope several times to make a decision about Woelki, i.e. finally him as a cardinal from Cologne recall. He didn't seem to notice that this request was becoming more and more embarrassing for Bätzing, or he didn't want to.
3. It may be that Curial Cardinal Kurt Koch did not express himself clearly in his comparative presentation of positions from the Nazi era and the contents of the synodal path. But is it fraternal coexistence among shepherds that Bätzing immediately demanded a public apology from Koch, and if this was not done "immediately" then he would immediately "lodge an official complaint to the Pope"? Can't one first try to solve this in a more discreet way, as would be more appropriate to the offices of 2 Catholic pastors?
4. When foreign bishops (from Poland, Scandinavia, USA, Canada, Australia, Japan and other Asian countries to highly recognized representatives of the Benedictine monastery in Heiligenkreuz in Austria) competently and critically deal with the content of the synodal path in Germany, is it the right way to brush them off according to the motto: It's a pity that you don't understand what it's all about?! Such a reaction speaks of arrogance and hubris. Perhaps it is therefore good that, according to a recent survey, 72% of those questioned answered that the name Georg Bätzing was unknown to them.
5. In the 4th Synodal Assembly from 8th to 10th October, the text on the liberalization of Catholic sexual morals was rejected in certain votes due to the 1/3 blocking minority of the bishops specified in the statute. Participants reported that they were under pressure even before the vote (one participant said: “I've been scared for months”). After the vote, the bishops who had not agreed to the proposed text were summoned behind closed doors. In the plenum there was “head washing, victor's fists, reproaches, protest posters, nervous breakdowns and insults such as treason! snipers! Cowardice! Laziness" (see "Die Tagespost", September 15, 2022). After the rejection of this text, which broke with the previously valid sexual morality of Church teaching, Bishop Bätzing defiantly announced that he would nevertheless implement the rejected paper in his diocese in Limburg and also present it in Rome.
And from now on the screws were tightened: A request for a secret vote, which must be submitted by at least 5 members, was also submitted in the assembly, but was rejected after a vote with a large majority, although a vote on a request of this kind is expressly not intended. Now the deviants (“traitors”) could finally be arrested immediately.
Now we wait and see how courageously the pope will deal with the episcopal heretics. The German bishops' ad limina visit in November is a good opportunity for him to take a clear position.
Robert Cardinal Sarah bitterly said the following after this synodal assembly: “What is happening in Germany is terrible. One has the impression that the truths of faith and the commandments of the Gospel are put to the vote. By what right can we decide to renounce part of the teaching of Christ?” (quoted in: “Die Tagespost”, September 15, 2022).
Summary:
The result of Georg Bätzing's administration is devastating. His management style is extremely authoritarian because he doesn't leave the slightest room for dissenting opinions. It is not certain how much longer the bishops, priests and laity will put up with this. However, demands from the laity for corrections towards a synodal cooperation are hardly to be expected, because they were selected according to the principle of guaranteeing a "secular majority". If now, after the end of the synodal path next spring, the already elected "synodal councils" monitor and demand the implementation of the resolutions of the synodal assemblies - one is still pending - the Catholic Christian in Germany experiences a heterogeneous diocesan landscape in which he can can no longer find some in his beliefs. We have fallen into a terrible trap because Bishop Bätzing and his friends drove the Catholic Church in Germany to a wall.
Prof. Dr. Werner Münch, is Prime Minister a. D., and member of the Board of Trustees "Joy in Faith"
Bishop de Smedt, an influential protagonist of the Second Vatican Council, became the smasher of his bishopric of Bruges
By Ferdinand Boischot
On May 19, 1966, the Belgian bishops, led by Cardinal Suenens and Bishop De Smedt, blew up the Catholic Church in Flanders
From the beginning of the 1960s there was a huge crisis in Belgium: the Dutch-speaking Flemings, who had been neglected and discriminated against since the founding of Belgium (1830), fought harder than ever for their self-determination and equality, the coal and steel region in the Borinage collapsed, the state groaned beneath enormous financial burdens, the Belgian establishment was frustrated by the rapid and unsuccessful decolonization of the Congo, the liberals and socialists on the one hand and the Christian Democrats on the other, eyed each other suspiciously after the "school fight" (1954), in the university town of Leuven things were seething among the students, and a military coup threatened. As part of a local laissez-aller under the cloak of Vatican II, all Christian leadership evaporated. During strikes in the Limburg coal mines in 1966, the gendarmerie shot two young men (Zwartberg crisis) and the more neutral army had to be deployed.
The Belgian bishops were well informed. They were closely associated with the Christian Democrat leadership and ruled over a wide range of Catholic schools, hospitals, unions and charities and senior citizens' associations.
The Great Protagonist
Bishop De Smedt was the main protagonist here. Vice-rector of the Catholic University of Leuven since 1959 was the “very young” Guido Maertens (then 29 years old) from Bruges, who was ordained a priest by Bishop De Smedt and, at the age of 30, had been appointed monsignorand “prelate of His Holiness” like a meteor.
The heated situation in Louvain was well known, as was the dislike of Flemish students towards the aloof Brussels Cardinal Suenens.
Inauguration of Bishop De Smedt
Despite this, or probably precisely because of this, the Belgian bishops' conference published its notorious mandate on May 19, 1966, which immediately triggered civil war-like conditions in Leuven. The gendarmerie reacted exaggeratedly. Great destruction ensued, and centralized Belgium fell apart. The university and its institutions were split head over heels to the point of criminality (an impossible division of books in the library). The government fell. And suddenly a quarter of all believers disappeared from the churches.
The bishops immediately went into hiding.
Without the disturbing looks of critical believers, the Christian Democrat-led iconoclasm and liturgical killing spree could be carried out smoothly.
Bishop De Smedt followed suit with perfidious intelligence on February 2, 1968: In an interview (of course published immediately and widely) he said that "at that time (1966) he had made a serious mistake by sticking to the unity of two wings (of the Catholic University Louvain).
As a result, no Flemish Catholics went to church, but the relationship with the French-speaking bishops in the Belgian bishops' conference was strained for the next 20 years.
The isolation of the Christian-democratic-modernist, de facto former Catholic Church in northern Belgium, without disturbing observers from outside, was perfect.
The Diocese of Bruges as a laboratory and hotspot
The Bruges diocese was here, together with Leuven, the Wagenburg alias laboratory and hotspot for a particularistic North Belgian Christian Democratic morality with exploding homosexuality and pedosexuality.
De Smedt never published much: before the Council and as a prime example of an evangelizing bishop, he published a small booklet on Catholic “Evangelization in the Neighborhood”, which was also translated into French and Spanish.
After the Council, he produced a booklet on “The Priesthood of All Believers”, which was significantly published abroad (France) and remained unknown in Belgium (easily understandable after the events of 1966-1968) because the context was too incoherent and was obviously hypocritical.
Existing biographical notes on the post-1966 period are very sparse, even remarkably sparse. In the diocese of Bruges, the vast majority of priests were ordained and the seminary there was the northern Belgian "cadre factory".
Here Roger Vangheluwe (later pedosexual Bishop) became Dean and Professor at the Major Seminary; here Frans Lefevre, a friend of Danneels and editor of the infamous Roeach series of books on religious education, was ordained and also a professor at the seminary; here Johan Bonny (later homophilic bishop of Antwerp) was ordained a priest. Auxiliary Bishop Paul Lanneau, Danneels' aide and sentenced to prison for covering up pedophilia, was co-consecrated by De Smedt.
Emiel Jozef De Smedt 1909-1995
The Bruges Major Seminary became a super-social hotspot, although this 'social' does not (of course) refer to the Flemish aspirations.
In 1979, the booklet "As man and woman he created them " with the subtitle "Ethical Orientations in Sex Education" was published by the publishing house Lannoo (Tielt), which is traditionally associated with the diocese, under the authorship of De Smedt.
It's written in a boring way, in the style of the bombast of northern Belgian modernism. Already in the foreword by Bishop De Smedt it is expressly said: "... because many young people have difficulties and questions, and I want to help them..." (sic).
Just four pages with some thoughts on Christian education, then a great many pages to: "It's about the happiness of the people" ("sinful man and the forgiving love" - this topos was literally used by Cardinal Danneels in the Vangheluwe scandal; "Danneels-tapes"), then the jump is made to: "Development of ethical action and feeling" (typical for the University of Louvaine 1970-2020). Finally, the central piece follows: “Love and Sexuality”. This is the full program of the Danneels Epoch 1983-2009.
It is significant that the first part on sexuality in general (5.5 pages) is immediately followed by the part on homosexuality (also 5.5 pages).
Nota bene: Homosexuality had not been criminalized in Belgium until eight years earlier (although this action was led in large part by a “worker priest”).
It is only in the last chapter “Growing in Love” that there are five pages about marriage and parallel to that also about renunciation (the word celibacy is used twice, the word council once, and the word monastery twice).
As stated at the end of the preface, the booklet is composed of papers from a study group set up by Bishop De Smedt.
Linguistically smoothed out by Mark Vandevoorde, later spokesman and speechwriter for senior Christian Democrat politicians, also well acquainted with Vangheluwe and a seminary professor, plus Guido Maertens (former Vice-Rector of Louvaine and "ethicist"), a Christian Democrat sociologist (WD) and four professors from the Major Seminary in Bruges, apart from Maertens (later at KULAK in Kortrijk) and the sociologist, will all continue to work seamlessly under Vangheluwe.
They are all "rewarded" with induction into the Chapter of St. Salvator's Cathedral in Bruges.
The booklet is not very attractive from the outside (in my case "3rd impression").
The new sexual morality
At the same time, a slimmed-down version was printed for young people as a large, colorful brochure on glossy paper (52 pages, 50,000 copies of the 1st edition). Lots of large format photos of brick walls and a sandy beach, a bicycle handlebar with a bell, door handles, traffic signs and similar nonsense.
The title is "Ontmoeten" "to meet", with small subtitles "a letter to young people and their companions about relationship building, love and sexuality".
The chapter on homosexuality has been removed, and an extra section on masturbation and sinful thoughts have been added, and that too is spoken in flat language...
The whole body of thought of the Danneels and Vangheluwe epoch with their sex fixation and the complete loss of faithful Catholic morality is already there. The professor protagonists of the Danneels and Vangheluwe eras are also already present.
As said, almost all of them can be found in the list of canons of the cathedral chapter of St. Salvatore in Bruges.
Even now (2022) Vangheluwe's "companions" and cronies are sitting there in large numbers.
The biographical notes on Bishop De Smedt then become fewer and fewer.
He wrote another thin, large format pamphlet about Europe aka the EU, on pink and black porous paper and with no Christian content.
In 1984 De Smedt retired; he was succeeded by Roger Vangheluwe.
De Smedt withdrew to a convent in Bruges and no longer appeared in public.
In 1985, during the visit of Pope John Paul II, he stayed in the background. Pretty strange for one of the most crucial figures of Vatican II.
Apparently, Bishop De Smedt's activities were viewed very critically in Rome at the time.
It is said that De Smedt suffered from dementia at a fairly early age (75 years old). He died in 1994 at the age of 85.
Nothing is known of a reaction by bishop emeritus De Smedt to the article about the “establishment of a working group to promote the interests of pedophiles in the church” (sic) in 1985 in the Church newspaper “Kerk en Leven” (notabene printed by the diocesan publisher in Bruges).
Neither De Smedt nor his “ethical study group” are aware of a reaction to the “religious instruction book” Roeach3 with pedophile texts and illustrations (1992).
It would be another 20 years before the authors and staff were either dead or retired.
The mafia-like wagon company of the Bruges diocese held out for a very long time (until 2017).
Conclusion
Under Bishop Emiel Jozef De Smedt, the homo- and pedophile impregnation of the diocese of Bruges was initiated in terms of personnel and content, and this was probably in close connection with the ideas of the Second Vatican Council.
It continued seamlessly under his successors Vangheluwe and De Kesel, and spilled over to the whole of northern Belgium.
Terra devastata - scorched earth.
References:
MGR. EJ De Smedt: Man en vrouw schep Hij hen : ethical orientations in de seksuele opvoeding , Tielt , 1979
MGR. E.J. De Smedt: "Ontmoeten" : a brief aan jongeren en hun daughters over relational, delivered in seksualiteit" , Tielt-Amsterdam 1979
A Protestant pastor in training and a Catholic community administrator in training have made sex abuse allegations that the diocese has already classified as “credible”: Bätzing spoke out against the priest “formally reprimanding” him but promoted him anyway
Limburg (kath.net) The Bishop of Limburg, Georg Bätzing, appointed the man he had warned of molesting two women as regional dean. The diocese confirmed both the allegations against the man and his promotion. This was reported by the "Zeit" and the "Spiegel". Bätzing had given the man a "formal reprimand". Two women have accused the priest of both verbally and sexually harassing them. According to "Zeit", the priest verbally and physically sexually harassed a female Protestant pastor who was still in training in 2000, and the diocese considers the allegations to be credible. Another female parish administrator, who was also still in training, is said to have molested this pastor around 2006/2007”. The reports of both women are the "Zeit" before.
Nevertheless, this priest was promoted to regional dean – even AFTER the bishop had issued a “formal reprimand”. The "Spiegel" cites from the justification by the press office of the diocese of Limburg: "Also because it was not a matter of criminal behavior, the pastor had insight and remorse and he had apologized to the community administrator for his behavior, the bishop then appointed him to the office of regional dean.”
Bishop Bätzing has been the President of the German Catholic Bishops' Conference (DBK) since March 2020.
Archive photo Bishop Bätzing (c) Diocese of Limburg
Cardinal Dominik Duka accuses Cardinal Marx of apparently defaming Pope Benedict XVI..
(Munich/Prague) The Czech bishops are jumping to Benedict XVI's side to protect him because the German bishops are obviously unable or unwilling to do so. Cardinal Dominik Duka, Archbishop of Prague, defends Benedict XVI. in an open letter against the dirt bucket campaign that is underway in Germany against the former head of the Church. At the same time, he accuses Cardinal Reinhard Marx, the incumbent Archbishop of Munich and Freising, "of having defamed and tarnished his reputation".
The heckling from Prague shook the bishop's palaces in Munich and Limburg like thunder. Cardinal Duka, the primate of Bohemia, reads his German brothers the riot act in an open letter. Even more: He practices devastating criticism of one of the most powerful bishops in Europe.
The report with which Benedict XVI. is "unjustly slandered and hurt," as far as is now clear, is not worth the paper it is printed on. This report "probably cost hundreds of thousands of euros," said Cardinal Duka. The words weigh as heavy as lead: The Czech cardinal says frankly that apparently a lot of money was paid to drag Benedict XVI. through the dirt.
Cardinal Duka, persecuted by the Communists, knows how directed discrediting campaigns work. The Munich lawyers who prepared the report were unfair to Benedict XVI. because, as the cardinal implies, they apparently already had the intention of pillorying the former pope. The motivation remains unclear for the time being. Cardinal Duka ignores it. Do the lawyers just want to attract attention in a cheap way, make themselves important? One thing is certain, according to Duka: "No evidence" was presented, only an "opinion" was given.
The canon lawyer Stefan Mückl, who in the course of the dirt bucket campaign against Benedict XVI. explored the allegations made in detail, meanwhile, came to a clear conclusion: More than 40 years ago, the then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Archbishop of Munich and Freising, had "no knowledge of the criminal acts of these priests", contrary to the assumption in the Munich report.
Specifically, there are four cases. The report scandalized the fact that the archbishop at the time knew about the cases but did nothing to counteract them. "But it's not true. He didn't know what these priests did," said Mückl after studying the files.
Monsignor Bätzing, Bishop of Limburg and President of the German Bishops' Conference, plays an opaque role in the matter. In any case, he did nothing to improve and defend the reputation of Benedict XVI. On the contrary, after the publication of the dubious allegations by the Munich report, he was ready to join the chorus of critics of Benedict. Cardinal Duka does not mention Bätzing by name, but the head of the German bishops is also washed with it.
Far more serious is the accusation that Cardinal Duka makes against Cardinal Marx. Marx, former President of the German Bishops' Conference and representative of Europe in the Council of Cardinals, which advises Pope Francis in the governance of the universal Church, was guilty of "defamation", the defamation of his predecessor as Archbishop of Munich and Freising and later Pope Benedict XVI.
Cardinal Marx, who has twice offered his resignation to Pope Francis in connection with the cases of sexual abuse by clerics, albeit only pro forma, is standing in front of a pile of rubble. Cardinal Duka's accusation weighs heavily: the Archbishop of Prague says that Cardinal Marx has lost his credibility.
The cardinal creation of Jean-Claude Hollerich SJ, Archbishop of Luxembourg and President of COMECE.
Pope Francis wants to set the course for his successor so closely that the conclave cannot help but elect one of his crown princes. There are several of them, since the Argentine Pope is clear and unequivocal in his objectives, but also erratic and capricious due to his character. That's why new names keep popping up in his favor, while others don't resign because of it. Despite all the imponderables of a conclave, he not only wants to expand the circle of those who are committed to him but apparently also increase the chances of success. The Vaticanist Sandro Magister recently drew attention to a new name in papal favor.
“On the list of cardinals Francis would like to see succeed him, a new name has quickly jumped to the top. It is Jesuit Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, Archbishop of Luxembourg.”
Cardinal Hollerich would combine characteristics of the two very different recent popes in a remarkable way. He comes like Benedict XVI. from the German-speaking area and, like Francis, is a Jesuit.
However, the latter is also the main obstacle, which a priori speaks more against than for him as a promising candidate. While Magister considers this hurdle “not necessarily insurmountable”, it is very unlikely that the papal electors will put two Jesuits in a row on the throne of Peter. Overall, Magister's assessment seems a bit too benevolent, but the punchline follows at the end. Let's hear the Vaticanist himself.
The Missionary from Japan
Hollerich's "only limitations would be his relatively young age, 64, and that he is a Jesuit. But these limitations are not necessarily insurmountable."
"In terms of age, Hollerich is just a year away from the other frontrunner dear to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Filipino Cardinal Luis Antonio Gokim Tagle, Prefect of Propaganda Fide, and six years, so not much, from the most recognized of the alternative candidates, the Hungarian Cardinal Peter Erdö, Archbishop of Esztergom-Budapest. And as for his membership of the Society of Jesus, he has hitherto shown the best and least partisan sides of it, the most fascinating, especially for those twenty-seven years of missionary work in Japan, at the very frontiers of the faith.
Magister attests Cardinal Hollerich to speak “with a seriousness and depth that distinguishes him from the mediocre depth of most of the cardinals appointed by Pope Francis”.
The Luxembourger studied at the Jesuit University in Frankfurt am Main and in Munich, speaks several languages, including Japanese, and taught for a long time at the renowned Sophia University in Tokyo. According to Magister, this university has nothing to do with the university of the same name, founded in 2008 by Chiara Lubich and her Focolare Movement in Loppiano, according to Hollerich's official biography on the Vatican website, which is incorrectly stated.
The Jesuit worked in Japan until Pope Benedict XVI. returned to Europe in 2011 by appointing him archbishop of his homeland. As the seat of various EU institutions and as a mediator between the two core countries of the EU, the Federal Republic of Germany and France or the corresponding language areas, the small Grand Duchy of Luxembourg plays an important hinge function, which is usually exercised discreetly and in the interests of the supranational unification process.
Hollerich's rise
This was also taken into account in the Church by electing Hollerich in 2018 to chair the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community ( COMECE), which is composed of the delegated bishops of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Union. The Church has little weight in the current EU and seems to have largely resigned itself to playing an extra role. A rather rare exception was Hollerich's criticism against French President Emmanuel Macron's proposal to include a "right to abortion" in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Macron made the corresponding move on January 19 in his speech to the EU Parliament in Strasbourg, with which he took over the French EU presidency.
Macron's initiative, which can hardly be surpassed in terms of cruelty and impudence, illustrated the state of affairs in the EU. With the icy coolness of the technocrat, who had never stood for election until the time when he was nominated in backrooms as a presidential candidate, he openly and publicly demanded that the killing of innocent people be made a "fundamental right" and "European value". Even more outrageous is the fact that MEPs sat idly by and listened to this incredible blunder.
Hollerich's objection came late and quietly, but it came nonetheless. He accused the Frenchman of "ideological guidelines" and expressed his "deep concern". As COMECE President, the cardinal spoke of an "unjust law without any ethical basis, which would lead to constant conflicts between the citizens of the EU". Human dignity is a core value of the EU. We are aware of the "tragedy and complexity" of the situation of women who are considering having an abortion. “Women in need should not be left alone, nor should the unborn child’s right to life be disregarded. Both must be given all the help and support they need.”
The Leap Forward
Hollerich stepped into the front row in the church when Pope Francis created him a cardinal in 2019. Since Francis follows idiosyncratic criteria when selecting those who wear purple, Hollerich's elevation to the rank of cardinal is to be seen as a special sign of favor. The Luxemburger is one of four Jesuits who were appointed to the Church senate by the Jesuit on the papal throne.
Cardinal Hollerich (*1958)
Hollerich had first taken over the leadership of the church in his homeland, then a leading position at the EU level, and now he has stepped onto the global stage. An apparently unstoppable rise. On July 8, 2021, Francis appointed him General Rapporteur of the multi-year Synod of Bishops on Synodality. The concept of synodality plays a central role for the reigning pope, and he made Hollerich the standard-bearer of this synodality, under the auspices of which Francis wants to transform the Church.
The role of the reporter general does not have to be given as much weight as Magister does, but Hollerich's appointment is nevertheless a signal: "Compared to Francis, who always remains indecipherable even when he opens up space for new solutions, Hollerich stands out with greater clarity.”
What is essential about Magister's analysis is that it shows Hollerich's positions, which he has made in several recent interviews. Magister writes:
“In recent weeks he has given lengthy interviews in which, apparently with intuitive approval from above, he has made clear directions that the pope does not wish to articulate in his own words, which is certainly linked to the wave of extreme demands now being poured out by the almost schismatic synodal path in Germany.”
Magister evaluated the three interviews that Cardinal Hollerich gave to the daily newspaper of the French bishops La Croix, the Herder Correspondence, and the Catholic News Agency (KNA ). Its statements on the nine "challenges" of our time explain his meteoric rise.
1) Married priests
“I used to be a big advocate of celibacy for all priests, but today I wish there were 'viri probati' [Hapless old boomers, short on orthodoxy and long on professional accomplishments.]It's a deep desire. And yet it is a difficult path for the Church because it can be felt like a rupture. After the Synod on Amazonia, one of the reasons why the Pope did not allow viri probati could be that they were too strongly demanded and the Synod was too reduced to this issue. But I think we have to go in that direction, otherwise, we'll soon run out of priests. [BS, dioceses that promote the Catholic Faith don't have a shortage of priests.] In the long term, I can also imagine the path of orthodoxy, in which only the monks are obliged to be celibate.”
2) Priestesses
“It seems to me that the first problem is not whether or not women should become priests, but more importantly whether women have any real weight in the priesthood, which is common to all baptized and confirmed members of the people of God, and whether they in this way exercise the associated authority. Would that also mean preaching at Mass? I would say yes.
3) Deaconesses
"I wouldn't mind. But the reforms must be based on a stable foundation. If the Pope were to suddenly allow 'viri probati' and deaconesses, there would be a great danger of division. There is not only the situation in Germany, where maybe only a small part would break away. In Africa or in countries like France, many bishops would probably not participate.”
4) German Synod
“Sometimes I have the impression that the German bishops do not understand the Pope. The Pope is not liberal, he is radical. It is the radical nature of the Gospel that brings about change. I share Tomás Halik's attitude: we can't just talk about structural reforms, spirituality must also grow again. If it just reforms as a result of a conflict, things can quickly turn around. In this case, everything depends only on the greater influence of one group or another. That way we don’t get out of the vicious circle.”
5) Sexuality and abuse
“We need to change the way we look at sexuality. So far we have had a rather repressed view of it. Of course, it's not about telling people they can do anything, or getting rid of morality, but I think we have to say that sex is a gift from God. We know that, but are we saying it? I'm not sure. Some people attribute the increase in abuse to the sexual revolution. I think just the opposite: in my opinion, the most horrible things happened before the 1970s.”
6) homosexuality
“The Church's position that homosexual relationships are sinful is wrong. I believe that the sociological and scientific basis of this doctrine is no longer correct. It is time for a fundamental revision of the Church's teaching, and the way Pope Francis has spoken about homosexuality may lead to a doctrinal change. In the meantime, in our archdiocese in Luxembourg, no one is dismissed for being homosexual or for being divorced and remarried. I can't throw them out, they would be out of a job, and how can something like that be Christian? As for homosexual priests, there are many of them and it would be good if they could talk about it with their bishop without his condemning them.”
7) Intercommunion
“In Tokyo, I gave communion to everyone who came to Mass. I have never refused Communion to anyone. I have assumed that when a Protestant comes to Communion, he knows at least as well what Catholics mean by Communion as do other Catholics who go to Mass. But I would not concelebrate with an evangelical pastor. In Tokyo I got to know and appreciate Protestantism very well. But I attended one of their evening meals and was horrified when the remaining wine and bread were thrown away. That shook me a lot because as a Catholic I believe in the Real Presence.”
8) Latin Mass
“I like the Latin Mass, I find the texts very beautiful, especially the first canon. When I celebrate Mass in the chapel of my home, I sometimes choose a Latin prayer. But I wouldn't do that in a church. I know that the people there don't understand Latin and can't do anything with it. I have been asked to celebrate a Latin Mass in Antwerp according to the current rite. I will, but I wouldn't celebrate the old rite. That doesn't mean that others might not be able to do it in a good way. But I can not. In our language and in our imagination, the past is behind us and the future is ahead of us. In ancient Egypt, it was the other way around. The past was seen as something that lies ahead because we know and see it, while the future lies behind us because we do not know it. The Catholic Church still seems to me to have an Egyptian touch. But it doesn't work anymore. God opens up for the future. Some say that the fair used to be much nicer. But what form do they refer to? Mostly they imagine a certain past that is 'stylized' into a tradition. This is where Egyptian civilization ultimately failed. She was no longer able to change herself.” God opens up for the future. Some say that the Mass used to be much nicer. But what form do they refer to? Mostly they imagine a certain past that is 'stylized' into a tradition. This is where Egyptian civilization ultimately failed.”
9) abortion
“I know men and women, including those on the left, who identify as committed Christians fighting climate change, but vote in the European Parliament to make abortion a fundamental right and restrict doctors' freedom of conscience. They tend to confine their religious preferences to the private sphere. But in this case, it is no longer a religion but a personal belief. Religion needs a public space in which to express itself. For example, I am absolutely against abortion. And as a Christian, I cannot take any other position. But I also understand that it is about the dignity of women and that what we used to say against the abortion law is no longer audible today. What other actions can we take at this time? At this point, what else can we do to protect life? If discourse is no longer followed, you shouldn’t bite your teeth, but look for other ways.”
Smooth and progressive. Francis likes his politically correct brother Hollerich. Does that make him suitable for the papacy?
Magister's Notes
Aside from the fact that Hollerich says deaconesses but means female deacons, it would be interesting to know what he is referring to when he says that the "most horrible things" of sexual abuse happened before 1970, which his age and his choice of words make him not seem to have what I know from my own experience that the positions of the Jesuit cardinal are frighteningly clear. He proves to be a more liberal spirit – despite the fact that he is the same as Francis in terms of content. However, this does not predestine him as a candidate for the Petrine ministry.
On another point, the liturgical blessing of homosexual couples, "on which the German synod got into an uproar and Pope Francis himself showed signs of giving in", Hollerich, according to Magister, made "short work":
"I don't agree with marriage blessings, because we see marriage only as a bond between a man and a woman."
However, Hollerich distances himself from something that is not (yet) demanded in this form even by the Church homosexual lobby. The man who, according to the Magister, formulates "with greater clarity" than Francis, also uses veiling means of dialectics.
According to the Vaticanist, Hollerich's vision of the Church also differs from the "hyper-democratic" view that the Limburg bishop and chairman of the German Bishops' Conference, Georg Bätzing, recently confirmed in an interview. But that doesn't seem so sure.
Magister doesn't mention it, but it fits the picture: Hollerich advised Cardinal Rainer Woelki, Archbishop of Cologne, in early February to resign. Such "advice" could already be heard from Munich. With Hollerich, Santa Marta is not far away.
“However, one unknown factor remains open. How long will Hollerich's reform guidelines, which consist of many yeses but also some nos, last if the disturbing proposals of the German synod in Rome meet the synod of the whole Church on synodality?
At a press conference on February 3, Bätzing said that after meeting Hollerich and Maltese Cardinal Mario Grech, general secretary of the synod of bishops, in Luxembourg, he was received in audience by Pope Francis, who advocated the establishment of a working group to reconcile the German synod with of the Synod of the Universal Church.
In the summary, Magister sounds devastating criticism:
“Hollerich as a reform candidate for the papacy seems to promise a more straightforward and coherent path than the current shaky and contradictory pontificate. However, he is a banal echo of Bergoglio, even if he repeats the litany so important to the incumbent Pope: 'Even the shepherd does not always know the way and knows where to go. Sometimes it is the sheep who find the way and the shepherd who laboriously follows, step by step'.”
Not to mention, according to Magister, the ruthless mockery of the Aristotelian principle of non-contradiction, in which Hollerich does not shy away from turning it into its opposite "with a touch of coloring à la japonaise" - like Pope Francis:
“I am a bishop who is from Japan and I think these experiences have given me a different perspective of thinking and judgement. Unlike the Europeans, the Japanese do not think in terms of the logic of opposites. When we say something is black, it means it's not white. The Japanese, on the other hand, say: 'It's white, but maybe also black'. In Japan, you can combine opposites without changing your point of view.”
Text: Giuseppe Nardi Image : Vatican.va/MiL/La Croix (Screenshots)
