CNA Newsroom, Oct 5, 2022 / 06:46 am (CNA).
Following demands for an apology and a threat he might “file an official complaint with the Holy Father,” the German Bishops’ Conference president met with a Vatican cardinal in Rome this week.
Bishop Georg Bätzing sat down with Cardinal Kurt Koch on Oct. 4 to apparently clear the air over what the German Bätzing had called a “totally unacceptable gaffe” by the Vatican cardinal, who is a native of Switzerland and president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
The exchange was the result of a disagreement over remarks involving “German Christians,” Nazi ideology, and theological claims of a key document of the German Synodal Way.
“For Cardinal Koch and Bishop Bätzing, it is clear after the conversation that the theological debate, to which the cardinal wanted to contribute in the interview, must continue,” spokesman Matthias Kopp said Wednesday, according to a report by CNA Deutsch, CNA’s German-language partner agency.
According to the bishops’ conference statement, the cardinal had “assured the bishop that he in no way meant the Synodal Way of the Church in Germany or the Synodal Assembly by the comparison he drew between theological debates on the Synodal Way and the events surrounding the so-called ‘German Christians’ during the Nazi era.”
“Expressly Cardinal Koch emphasizes that it is completely far from him to want to impute the terrible ideology of the 1930s to the Synodal Way,” the spokesman continued.
“Cardinal Koch asks for forgiveness from all those who feel hurt by the comparison he made.”
However, this assertion is not new, nor is the apology that Bätzing said he found not to be to his satisfaction.
CNA contacted Koch about his perspective on the encounter but had not received a response at the time of publication.
On Sept. 29, Koch had apologized for any hurt but at the same time defended himself against Bätzing’s claims of an “unacceptable gaffe,” saying, “I cannot retract my essential point, simply because I have in no way compared the Synodal Way to a Nazi ideology, nor will I ever do so.”
At that time, this clarification did not sit well with the German Bishops’ Conference president.
One day after Koch’s rejoinder, on Sept. 30, Bätzing replied he would not accept this apology as “satisfactory,” reported CNA Deutsch.
So what did the Swiss prelate say that enraged the German bishop and now led to a meeting in Rome?
In an interview with a German newspaper, Koch — an internationally respected theologian — had said he was shocked that, of all places, the German Synodal Way was talking about new sources of revelation.
“This phenomenon already existed during the National Socialist dictatorship, when the so-called ‘German Christians’ saw God’s new revelation in blood and soil and in the rise of Hitler,” Koch told the weekly Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost.
The “German Christians” (Deutsche Christen) were a Nazi-era pressure group that wanted to align Protestantism with racist Nazi Ideology.
In contrast, the opposing Confessing Church’s Barmen Theological Declaration spoke against such distortions of Christian teaching.
The 1934 statement said, in its first article: “We reject the false doctrine, as though the church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God’s revelation.’”
Following demands by Bishop Bätzing for an apology, Koch said in a response, written Thursday last week: “It was a matter of concern to me to recall the Barmen Theological Declaration in this context, because I still consider it important today, also for ecumenical reasons. In order to make the content understandable to those who read it, I had to briefly note what this declaration responded to.”
“In saying this, I was in no way comparing the Synodal Way with the mentality of the ‘German Christians,’ nor did I want to do so,” the Swiss prelate added.
Koch pointed out he was far from “alone in my criticism of the orientation text of the Synodal Way,” adding: “My critical comment, then, cannot simply be an expression of a completely mistaken theology.”
“Just as the so-called ‘German Christians’ — thank God — did not comprise all German Christians, I also, in no way, had all [Synodal Way] participants in mind with my statement, but only those Christians who represent the assertion formulated in the question. And I hope to continue to assume that this assertion is not the opinion of the Synodal Way.”
The Synodal Way — Synodaler Weg in German, sometimes translated as “Synodal Path” — is a controversial process that has come under sustained criticism from cardinals, bishops, and theologians both internationally and in Germany.
The Vatican intervened in July, warning of a threat of new schism from Germany arising from the process.
Writing about the Synodal Way, Pope Francis warned of disunity in his letter to German Catholics in 2019.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, a German theologian considered close to Pope Francis, in June 2022 warned that the German process is at risk of “breaking its own neck” if it does not heed the objections raised by a growing number of bishops around the world.
In April, more than 100 cardinals and bishops from around the world released a “fraternal open letter” to Germany’s bishops, warning that sweeping changes to Church teaching advocated by the process may lead to schism.
In March, an open letter from the Nordic bishops expressed alarm at the German process, and in February, a strongly-worded letter from the president of Poland’s Catholic bishops’ conference raised serious concerns.
Bishop Bätzing has repeatedly rejected any and all concerns, instead expressing disappointment in Pope Francis in May. In his first reaction to the criticism by Cardinal Koch, the German prelate said Koch’s words betrayed a fear that “something will change.”
“But I promise you: Something will change and even Cardinal Koch will not be able to stop that — certainly not with such statements,” Bätzing added.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Can’t help but notice the parallel between Koch today and Benedict a few years back…
Speaking to an academic audience in his Regensburg Address (2006), Pope Benedict quoted views not his own but those of the 14th-century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman.” The pope’s later “apology” was not that of a chameleon. Rather than retracting a truth spoken, Benedict (like Koch) apologized only for unnecessary misunderstandings in the illiterati.
As later published, Benedict’s lecture includes a footnote:
“I hope that the reader of my text can see immediately that this sentence does not express my personal view of the Qur’an, for which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion. In quoting the text of the Emperor Manuel II, I intended solely to draw out the essential relationship between faith and reason. On this point I am in agreement with Manuel II, but without endorsing his polemic.”
Does the emperor Batzing truly believe that in sodomizing the binary sexual relationship into something else upside-down, that such posturing then will be validated by a synodalized and upside-down Church? Batzing is beyond his depth, and would do well to shut up while he’s behind.
Dear Peter:
You remind us of the Koran’s inadequacy and how too often it tries to change the word of God into something self serving. Though I mean no disrespect to the one who adheres to the Koran, it is not the Word of the God of Jacob.
Never the less, should a follower of Islam wish to pursue this thought, it would be a pleasure to have a courteous discussion on the relative merits of Christianity compared with Islam.
Though this is your theme Peter, hope you don’t mind me taking this liberty, At the same, we both proclaim Christ crucified to the benefit of mankind!
With respect and appreciation,
Brian
Zechariah 8:16 These are the things that you shall do: Speak the truth to one another; render in your gates judgments that are true and make for peace;
Psalm 119:160 The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.
Psalm 86:11 Teach me your way, O Lord, that I may walk in your truth; unite my heart to fear your name.
John 8:32 And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
An emphatic yet, brash statement by Bätzing. Should he choose to listen to our Lord and saviour, Jesus Christ, what a different message he would hear. Men like this are no benefit to the church, much less the flock or to themselves.
His place, along with likeminded individuals, is outside of the church. Rebellion and unrepentant behaviour is never a qualification for membership in God’s house.
Those in the church recognize their need for a saviour and we hold the word of our Lord in high esteem. Yes, we sin and we readily confess it. We don’t try to promote it or say it is not a sin.
Papa appears reluctant to uphold the dignity of our Lord in this matter. No action suggests weakness or tacit agreement with the aforementioned.
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
1 John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Titus 1:12 One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”
2 Corinthians 4:16-18 So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.
Let us honour the Lord in word and deed, for we were bought at a great price.
Well witnessed….blessings
satan bellows and cowards show yellow…Lord grant us to be courageous lovers of the Salvation of each of Your Little Ones….
As the German bishops capitulate to the cultural zeitgeist today, how does that differ from the capitulation of Catholics to the political zeitgeist 80 years ago? As a German American, I hate to say it, but what is it about Germans being so easily swayed by prevailing and tyrannical cultural fads? Then cry “Victim!” I know it is a stereotype of my own people but it seems to apply all too easily.
Unbridled PRIDE
The German bishops are seeking to legitimize the mass slaughter of innocent unborn lives and regard it as progress for humanity. No reason at all to apologize for drawing parallels to Nazism.
And the German church is growing, flourishing, evangelizing, attracting young people? The German model is irrelevant to all except those who want to subordinate the Church to the spirit of the age.
Yes, exactly. Chesterton was onto it a century ago: “A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.”
“Synods bring to light… stupid, subjective ideas as private revelation from God…”, Cardinal Mueller.
Batzing should be censured by the Vatican and removed from office if he continues down this path. Schism is the likely outcome if the Vatican lacks the nerve to enforce church discipline. We have been down this road before with Martin Luther, have we not??The time to stop it is NOW, before the process goes any further and cannot be recalled.
Marin Luther, one may posit! Though i don’t know a great deal about him, my understanding is that he didn’t want to leave the Church of Rome, rather he wanted to take matters back to what was established at the Council of Trent.
We had pure religion that honoured the Lord at that time. Anything superfluous or the product of mans imagination followed over the centuries. Going beyond has not aided the believer. He probably didn’t break any new ground, however he searched the scriptures diligently to rediscover Gods pathway for His creation!
There is bound to be some controversy here, which would be welcome and informative.
God bless you.
Rather than “controversy,” how about some information?
Luther found the stage lights in 1517; the Council of Trent was in 1545-1563 and was both an affirmation of Catholic Tradition and a specific response to Luther’s deconstruction of this Church (e.g., elimination of Holy Orders and the sacrament of Marriage, redefinition of the Eucharist, etc.). Many abuses to be corrected, but too many added!
As you suppose, it might not have been “new ground” that he broke, but it was nearly everything else. Even the human expectation that a near-infinite splattering of mutually contradictory interpretations of Scripture might be averted, instead, by the gifted indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the institution of the Catholic Church—an institution founded by and in Jesus Christ, not by Luther, nor Calvin, nor Zwingli nor Knox nor anyone else in the neighborhood with a building permit and a diploma, and probably married to a wife (rather than exclusively to the Church).
Thank you for correcting me regarding the Council of Trent. When a person takes time to rectify an error of mine it is appreciated! 🙂
You know Catholic Church Tradition and the precepts, which you hold dear. This I resect, yet your broad based denunciation of Luther calls out for a fuller examination. Where or if Luther is mistaken, Holy Writ will rebuke him, for scripture Is God breathed and always the correct path for the follower of Christ.
Why not choose one one of the points that you find especially egregious and make your case via Holy Scripture? This will be an aid to those who share your views. As in all matters, the final word always belongs to God.
It is with pleasure that I look forward to your response.
Mine was not a “broad based denunciation of Luther.” A complex man and a complex situation…
My Lutheran minister grandfather (dearly loved) was perplexed by where the Catholics found all those seven extra books (etc.) not found in the Lutheran bible. Inverted history, this, since the canon was written by the Church (not the other way round), and compiled in the 4th and 5th centuries, about one thousand years before Luther deleted the disputed texts. Luther also hesitated to include James (who speaks of works! as well as faith), but then included James while still editing the troubling verse.
Scripture is about the alarming and historical event of the Incarnation. A subtle misdirection, in my opinion, is to preach scriptural or “Gospel values” possibly in place of the actual Christ who is witnessed in the Gospels. In the Catechism, the gifted and sacramental Real Presence (n. 1374) is clearly proclaimed, in italics even, but still is too much overwhelmed in all else that must also be said, in my opinion. Sacramentally, we are actually incorporated into Jesus Christ.
You are correct that Luther never really intended to rupture the Church, or at least not until the end when he replaced ordained bishops with high-placed layman from the fledgling government. This action broke the apostolic succession (Tradition!) and renders invalid the Lutheran sacrament. Similarly, Anglicanism.
The Church Tradition includes, and is not apart from, the written and later compiled Scripture, to which you appeal. But, the “final word” (your term) IS the eternal “Word made flesh(!)” and now sacramentally present—not only scriptural words about the Word.
But also, in a nod toward the Church’s Scripture, since Vatican II, much more is made about the readings and the homilies (a three-year cycle on Sundays, and two-year cycle on weekdays, covering about 70 percent of the entire Bible, I hear). Perhaps a welcome Lutheran influence…
Does your most recent response of “OCTOBER 8, 2022 AT 11:32 AM”, not deserve a reply? It did not include the customary RSVP! However, I appreciate you taking the time to offer a rejoinder.
Allow me, if you will, to touch on a point or two in your answer!
If your initial comments regarding ML was not a “broad based denunciation of Luther.” one wonders what the full extent of your criticism might be then? 🙂
Your “(dearly loved)” grandfather wondered about those extra books found in the Vulgate! He was not alone for upon careful examination they were dropped from the Revised Vulgate, if recent memory serves me!
You write “Luther also hesitated to include James (who speaks of works! as well as faith), but then included James while still editing the troubling verse.”
Luther did not understand what James was saying (a common error). However if he took the passage out of Scripture, his error was a flagrant blunder indeed.
Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
James 2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.
This may appear to be a contradiction, all the same, scripture interprets so we need to go a little deeper.
Philippians 2:13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Philippians 2:13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
Thank you once again. God bless you as you serve Him in spirit and truth.
“[Luther] was not alone for upon careful examination they were dropped from the Revised Vulgate, if recent memory serves me!”
A big “if”. It seems probable that what you are actually referring to is not the recent deletion of the Catholic “deuteronomical” books from the Bible, but rather the re-admission (!) of the same “apocryphal” books at the end of the Protestant Bible.
The subject books were originally found in the Septuagint compilation, which was written in Greek rather than Hebrew (Luther translated directly from the more exclusive Hebrew). The meaning is that revelation to the Chosen People was not entirely tribal…that revelation was still being received by Jews of the early diaspora, those who came later than the Palestine era and lived outside of Palestine, and who spoke Greek rather than Hebrew.
Just a bit of the Catholic “memory”–part of the faith as it then opened up to the Gentiles, that is, the Bible as rooted in Tradition.
Once again, you omit the opportunity of replying (as the crow flies) to your latest dispatch, “OCTOBER 9, 2022 AT 7:26 AM”! Controversy is one matter, however, do polemics honour God and serve our fellow man all that well? God has given you intelligence to bring understanding to us.
It goes without saying that CWR is an exceptional forum for celebrating God and building harmony through sharing His word. I have asked you to frame your arguments by means of scripture. Ambiguous motions are sometimes interesting, yet in these difficult days of attacks on the church, we need God’s wisdom.
Ecclesiastes 7:12 For the protection of wisdom is like the protection of money, and the advantage of knowledge is that wisdom preserves the life of him who has it.
James 3:17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.
Proverbs 2:6 For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding;
God bless you and cause you to be a blessing.
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions [!] which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). “Polemics”?
Written scripture, itself, nowhere claims to be the exclusive touchstone (sola Scriptura, as some on these pages of CWR would seem to insist). Quite the opposite. “Traditions?” It’s almost as if the Church existed before Gutenberg invented the printing press, and before monks produced illuminated manuscripts (Catholics allergic to Scripture!), and even before the earliest witnessing and proclamation was reduced to written epistles now part of Scripture–as St. Paul indicates.
Of course, history (“as the crow flies”) could be mistaken about this track record of “harmony.”
But, yes, accessible history also does show us a world religion that does revert back, exclusively and even mechanically, to only a written imprint. A circular argument, this, in the Qur’an (not gracefully inspired, but literally “dictated”) and by the name of Islam: “the word made book,” in place of “the Word made flesh” (John 1:14).
On this point of Islam (as part of a generic mindset?), and at the risk, again, of not artificially confining my comments to possible bibliolatry in place of, rather than as part of a living and sacramental Tradition, readers of CWR (an “exceptional forum”) might be intrigued by this only partly outdated perspective:
“There is something decidedly Islamic in original Protestantism, with its idea of an all-controlling hidden God and His infallible Prophet [and sola Scriptura?], its secularization of marriage, its Puritanism and messianism. Even today some of the survivals of original (i.e., pre-liberal) Protestantism in remote parts of Scandinavia, Holland, Scotland and the United States have, at least culturally, more affinity with the Wahhabis than with Catholics from which they stem. It must be borne in mind that not so much the authoritarian organization but the liberal theology [prior to the modernist sense] of Catholicism was the target of the reformers” (Eric von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, “Liberty or Equality,” 1952, p. 221).
Dear Peter:
Thank you for your response. You offer a considerable amount to reflect on. One again, a circuitous route is necessary in responding to you! 🙂 Perhaps you would prefer no reply and you might not be alone.
To open up and share your mindset on a variety of topics is an aid in understanding your position in relation to the Catholic Church. Though we have differing views, allow me to say, we have the best interest of one another at heart.
The Apostolic “Tradition” I have complete confidence in. We will find a reliable guide for it is God breathed. There are some strong statements in the Catechism which point to the supremacy of scripture. We ask ourselves, is God’s word cardinal in our lives?
If scripture is not the “exclusive touchstone” what is comparable? Generalities are subservient to facts and specifics. Where are they then? You have cast aspersions without true supporting knowledge. If you had brought individual examples of church tradition or scripture that supports your contentions, we could address them point by point and bring enlightenment to one another.
Put your finger on a precise target and expand on it, if you will. You offered much to think about, so lets puts our minds to work and honour God.
Yours in Christ.
Brian
To justify the German Synodal Path’s stance on homosexuality, Holerich said:
[Quote] “What was condemned in the past was sodomy. At that time, it was thought that the whole child was contained in the sperm of the man,[**huh???**] and that was simply transferred to homosexual men. But there is no homosexuality in the New Testament.[**huh??? again**] There is only the mention of homosexual acts, which were partly pagan ritual acts. That was, of course, forbidden. I think it is time for a fundamental revision of the doctrine.”[End Quote] Does Holerich’s agenda-led-exegesis hold up? Here is what God said to St. Catherine of Siena (a Saint and Doctor of the Church) about Sodom. She quotes thus:
[Quote]“[The sins of Sodom were] not simply [committed] with the sort of impurity and weakness to which you are all naturally inclined because of your weak nature … No, these wretches not only do not restrain their weakness; they make it worse by committing that cursed unnatural sin [of homosexuality and other types of same-sex-relations]. … they do not recognize what miserable filth they are wallowing in. The stench reaches even up to me, Supreme Purity, and is so hateful to me that for this sin **alone** [emphasis SML] five cities were struck down by my divine judgment. For my divine justice could no longer tolerate it, so despicable to me is this abominable sin” [End Quote: Catherine of Siena, The Dialogue, trans. Suzanne Noffke (New York: Paulist Press, 1980), 237].
Why is it abominable? God told Moses his name was I AM That I AM. If one examines the Hebrew, the fact that the conjunctive relates to a primitive relative pronoun, the name can be understood as: I AM (the Father) so that I AM (the Son) in the one I of the Holy Spirit. Part of God’s Essence is Fruitfulness. Sex resulting from Same-Sex-Attraction is inherently and irrevocably sterile. Thus, such acts render the sinner still in the Image of God (though fallen), but NOT in His likeness.
I wrote a twenty-seven-thousand word article titled “Open Letter to Members of the German Synodal Way.” I respond at length to the errors I find in their documents. I not only point out the errors they promulgate, but also show why they are wrong. I back up my ascertions with plenty of data. I destroy virtually every argument thay make to justify leading their flock over a theological and cultural cliff. Frankly, the German Episcopate is sounding less and less like shephards and more and more like Pharisees and Sadducees.
Jesus said, “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves” (Mt 23:13-15).
Good work from your chair. We have a duty to speak God’s truth to one another in hopes a person will repent and look to God for the pathway forward! Your words may change the heart of someone.
God bless you.
Last night Cardinal Muller appeared on Ramond Arroyo’s show “The World Over.” He made the point that the goal of the Synod, as viewed by the German hierarchy, is to destroy the Catholic Church.
I do not understand the frustration of the German Church. What they desire already exists. It is called the “Old Catholic Church of Germany”, priestesses, married priests, gay marriage, Open Communion, etc. Why try to reinvent the wheel?
As I passed over the photo, The National Synod of “German Christians” in Wittenberg 1933 a flash [yes bizarre] thought of a choral presentation of Hail Holy Queen Enthroned Above. Would Nazi German Christians sing the Salve Regina as they escorted the unworthy of life to the gas chambers? What of the Synodaler Weg? Would they sing a Marian hymn in celebration of their hard fought right for Catholic constituents to abort their infants? Was Cardinal Kurt Koch off the mark or to the point?
Terrific Socratic questions to pose, not only to these Germans but numerous other radical progressives in the Church. I’ve always managed to undermine liberal assumptions with questions perhaps less charitable like asking why 98+ percent of gays are pro-abortion if their condition is so natural. I’ll learn to apply your questions Father.
Edward, as you’re likely aware of the dynamics, it’s worth stating here that the 98+ percent apparently seek to assuage their self evident guilt by dismissal of rules in general.
Fr Peter,
Informative, yet saddening. May your words bring some to the light, may our prayers stir the conscious of many.
God bless you in your service,
Brian
Thanks Brian.