German bishops rejected plan for Francis-style ‘Priority of Evangelization’ in synodal path

Berlin, Germany, Sep 10, 2019 / 01:40 pm (CNA).- The German bishops have rejected an alternative proposal for a synodal process centered on the “priority of evangelization” called for by Pope Francis.

The proposal was voted down in an August meeting of the executive committee of the German Episcopal Conference, during which they decided to continue with plans for the creation of a Synodal Assembly under the joint leadership of the head of the German bishops’ conference and the Central Committee of German Catholics (ZdK).

Like the plan developed under the leadership of Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich, the alternative plan would have created a Synodal Assembly made up of bishops, other clergy, and laity. It would also have sponsored a number of Synodal Fora to discuss and develop responses to pressing ecclesiastical issues.

But, unlike the Marx plan, the alternative proposal was specifically drafted to include the instructions of a June letter of Pope Francis to the German faithful, which laid out clear priorities for an authentic synodal process.

The draft plan was submitted to the Permanent Council of the German Episcopal Conference at its Aug. 19 meeting. It was jointly proposed by Cardinal Rainer Woekli of Cologne and Bishop Rudolf Volderhozer of Regensburg.

CNA has learned from officials and observers present at the meeting that the proposal was rejected in a 21-3 vote with three members abstaining. The committee is made up of the sitting diocesan bishops of the country.

The document proposed “a comprehensive and thoroughgoing spiritual renewal consistent with the universal Church and its faith in the sense of the ‘Priority of Evangelization’ called for by Pope Francis,” who warned the Germans against a synodal approach focused on bureaucratic and structural considerations without being animated by the Church’s essential mission to spread the faith.

While it mirrors many of the structural proposals of the Marx plan, including the involvement of the ZdK, the Woelki-Volderhozer plan placed the pope’s call for communion with the universal Church and the primacy of evangelization at the center of the synodal deliberations.

Both plans called for the incorporation of lay groups, including the ZdK, as well as representatives from religious orders and the diocesan clergy.

But unlike the Marx plan, which incorporated all the bishops of the country into the Synodal Assembly, in which they form a minority of members, the Woelki-Volderhozer would have limited episcopal membership to the 27 diocesan bishops and 13 auxiliary bishops elected by their peers. According to sources present in the room, Woelki and Volderhozer told the other bishops that their intention was to underscore that the bishops’ conference remained a separate and authoritative body whose authority was not subsumed into the Assembly.

In his June letter, Pope Francis warned against a version of synodality that only proceeds “from the bottom up,” and lacks a complimentary “synodality from top to bottom that allows, in a specific and singular way, for the collegial dimension of the episcopal ministry” in the universal life of the Church.

Unlike the Marx plan, the Woelki-Volderhozer proposal also called for observers from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization to attend the synodal sessions, and would have had provided for the full bishops’ conference to consider each synodal resolution, amending and voting on them as necessary, before submitting each resolution to Rome for “official review and recognition.”

In contrast, the Marx plan, which was approved during the August meeting, defines the Synodal Assembly as “the superior body” which “has deliberative power.” While the statutes of the Marx plan note that the Assembly does “not affect the power of the episcopal conference and of individual diocesan bishops,” neither does it provide any mechanism for them to review its resolutions.

Similarly, under the Marx plan, “resolutions that concern issues reserved for control by the Universal Church will be further transmitted to the Apostolic See,” but will neither request Roman approval or wait for a response before considering the resolutions approved for application in Germany. 

In his June letter, Pope Francis warned that the German synodal process must avoid the temptation of “a new Pelagianism” which seeks “to tidy up and tune the life of the Church, adapting it to the present logic.” The result, Francis said, would be a “well organized and even ‘modernized’ ecclesiastical body, but without soul and evangelical novelty.”

The pope specifically warned the Church in Germany against pursuing any course which aimed at “simply adapting to the spirit of times” and urged them to preserve the sensus ecclesiae of the whole Church on the faith.

“The universal Church lives in and of the particular Churches, just as the particular Churches live and flourish in and of the universal Church, and if they are separated from the whole ecclesial body, they weaken, wither and die. Hence the need to always keep alive and effective communion with the whole body of the Church,” Francis wrote.

In its original text, obtained by CNA, the Woelki-Volderhozer proposal suggested seven topics for synodal consideration: sexual abuse; delegating laity to serve in evangelization; youth ministry and catechesis; marriage ministry and family counselling; vocations ministry; theology and religious instruction at the service of evangelization; and spirituality and evangelization.

The plan also emphasized that magisterially clarified topics such as the ordination of women, which Pope Francis has consistently rejected in line with perennial Church teaching, would remain outside the synodal discussions. 

Sources close to the German bishops’ conference told CNA that there was concern among several bishops that creating a venue to vote against Church teaching could create “unrealistic expectations” for change, and even “sow the seeds of dissent between the particular and universal Church.”

But despite the warning from the pope and the proposal of a Francis-inspired synodal response, the draft plan approved by the German bishops, expected to be published soon, listed four key areas for the Synodal Fora to consider and propose resolutions on: “authority and separation of powers” in the Church; teaching on “sexual morality”; clerical discipline and “the priestly mode of life”; and “women at the service of ecclesiastical offices” in the Church.

The ZdK, whose members make up a significant portion of the proposed Assembly, have already published the names of participants in each of the fora and their work began even before the Aug. 19 meeting. In each case, the ZdK members have a public record opposing settled Church teaching and discipline, including “demanding” women’s ordination, and calling for a “radical break” with the Church’s teaching on sexual morality to incorporate new clinical and academic conclusions.

Public statements from the ZdK leadership underscored that the participation of the group in the synodal process was conditional on “the openness of the deliberations and the bindingness of the resolutions” being “guaranteed” by the German bishops, and the constitution of the Synodal Assembly in the Marx plan has raised concerns that the group’s deliberations could trigger a break with universal Church teaching, despite the pope’s warnings.

In a homily delivered Sept. 7, Cardinal Woelki spoke about the dangers of reforming efforts which are not grounded in the pope’s vision of the sensus ecclesiae.

“A Church that adapts itself to the world in its faith is not the work of the Holy Spirit, but that of our human spirit," he said in his homily on the feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

He also warned against the temptation for the Church to behave "like a parliament,” leaning on “the social and human sciences to negotiate about the faith and doctrine of the Church.”

The aim of bringing about “so-called reform of the Church,” the cardinal said, often proposes nothing more than “an adaptation to the thinking of the world."

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.

1 Comment

  1. We read that: “Woelki and Volderhozer told the other bishops that their intention was to underscore that the bishops’ conference remained a separate and authoritative body whose authority was not subsumed into the Assembly.” (a lost vote of 3-21 ain’t all that bad; England’s Bishop Fisher was all alone!)

    What a novelty–in the face of yet another contagious/intimidating group-think, at least a few solid bishops still affirm the critical distinction of Apostolic Succession tracing back not to Peter but to the Incarnate Christ. AND, at least some sense of history, rather than mimicking the convulsive experiences of their brother-clerics in next-door France, in 1789…

    In Revolutionary France the lower clergy, as the majority of the Third Estate (208 of 296 votes–merged with the lay public as today in synodal Germania), joined the smaller First and Second Estates to compel the secular monarchy (today their self-referential caricature of the papacy/magisterium of the universal Church?) to recognize a SINGLE COMBINED ASSEMBLY.

    Not an exact parallel, but still instructive to the wise:

    In France the leveled Assembly first subjected the Church to populist supervision, then came confiscations and institutional and doctrinal deconstruction (today the natural law and sexual morality), and then–spreading into the streets–the widening amalgamation fell into the total Revolution, followed by the continental conflagration and imperialism of some unlikely midget gunnery-lieutenant named Napoleon.

    Even Luther would pause. And today, tracking the global picture, less myopic minds wonder if such earlier survivalist events as Tours 732 A.D. and Vienna in 1683 A.D. will have a chance in hell in, say, fifty or a hundred years…or instead, synodal dhimmis, dumkaufen?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.