Regensburg, Germany, Jul 2, 2019 / 05:35 pm (CNA).- Monsignor Michael Fuchs, vicar general of the Diocese of Regensburg, has published a reflection on the June 29 letter Pope Francis wrote to Catholics in Germany, in which the pope called for a focus on evangelization in the face of the “erosion” and “decline of the faith” in the country.
Numbers provided in brackets are by Mons. Fuchs and refer to the original letter. Translated by Anian Christoph Wimmer from the original German as published by CNA Deutsch.
Please find below the full text of Msgr. Fuchs’ reflection:
Pope Francis writes a letter to Catholics in Germany. He, who places so much value on the strength of the local Church and emphasizes subsidiarity and synodality, finds himself forced to step in, as both a shepherd and a father.
The result is a word of warning, and at the same time a word of encouragement. This is a serious intervention.
It comes before a backdrop of developments in the Catholic Church in Germany in recent years, and in particular the last few months, of various protest actions and letters, of the current plans for the so-called “synodal process” (cf. section 3 of the letter) and associated demands and expectations. Their direction and their vehemence must have pushed the Holy Father to this word.
Francis does not contest particular points or weigh in on minutiae. The crisis of the Church in Germany is a much more profound one, and therefore the letter also takes a more fundamental approach. In doing so, Pope Francis refers repeatedly to his address to the German bishops on occasion of their ad limina visit on 20 November 2015 (cf. the letter’s introductory words, for instance) and his letter wants to be read and understood on the basis of that address.
In both his ad limina address and the letter, the Pope – after having praised the great achievements in Germany – clearly identifies the symptoms of the current crisis: fewer Catholics attend Sunday Mass or go to confession. The very substance of the faith among many has evaporated, and the number of priests is decreasing. He assures us of his closeness and his support for our efforts to overcome this crisis and to find new ways to do so, and he wants to encourage us.
But then he identifies a number of tendencies in the German search for solutions that cause him great concern.
The Pope’s concern about a “dismemberment” of the Church
First of all, there is the concern that the church in Germany will sever ties with the universal Church and split off from the global (“Catholic”) community of the Faith – the letter describes this as a “dismemberment” of the Church.
Accordingly, Pope Francis calls for “journeying together with the whole Church” (3) and refers to the “communio [community] of all particular Churches in the universal Church” (Note 7). He points out that “especially in these times of strong fragmentation and polarization, it is necessary to ensure that the Sensus Ecclesiae is actually alive in every decision taken” and that “the particular Churches live and flourish within and out of the universal Church; if they were separated from the universal Church, they would weaken, perish and die. It is therefore a necessity always to stay in active and effective communion with the whole Body of the Church” (9), “knowing that we are an essential part of a greater Body” (ibid.).
The Pope further warns – with reference to a book by Pope Benedict XVI – against the “temptation of the promoters of Gnosticism” who “have always tried to say something new and different from what the Word of God has given them. (…) What is meant by this is the one who wants to be ahead, the advanced one, who pretends to go beyond the ‘ecclesial We'” (ibid.). The passage from the Second Letter to John (2 John 9) mentioned in the text is revealing here: “Any one who goes ahead, and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ, has not God”. The pope [adds] that there is “a temptation by the Father of Lies (…), who (…) ultimately dismembers the Body of the holy and faithful people of God” (10). In contrast to this Pope Francis presents and proposes a holistic vision of synodality.
Obviously the Holy Father has not been unaware that some of the demands of the initiators of the “synodal process” (as the “synodal way” is often also called) go beyond – or do not sufficiently take into account – the globally binding Catholic foundations of Faith. At the very least, [these demands] could jeopardize the common path and the comprehensive communion of the Church. The Pope’s choice of words is unusually clear here.
The warning of a “secularized mindset”
A second topic in the papal letter concerns the temptation to strive only for a “reform of structures, organizations and administration”, constituting “a kind of new Pelagianism” (5), of which Pope Francis had already warned the German bishops during their ad limina visit in 2015. Pelagianism, rejected by the Church in the fifth century, claimed that there was no need for salvation from sins through Christ, and that man was sufficiently strong and good by himself.
In 2015 the Pope in this context already pointed out the temptation of “putting our trust in administration, in the perfect apparatus”. In his letter Francis warns against “secularization and a secularized attitude of mind” (5). “May God free us from a secular Church under spiritual or pastoral drapery! This suffocating worldliness is healed by tasting the pure air of the Holy Spirit, who frees us from revolving around ourselves, concealed underneath a semblance of religiosity, above a godless void” (5). (Note 13)
Rather, a “theologal perspective” is what is required: “The Gospel of Grace (…) should be the beacon and guide. Whenever an ecclesial community has tried to get out of its problems by itself, (…) it ended up multiplying the evils it wanted to overcome” (6). “Without ‘faithfulness of the Church to her own vocation’, any new structure will perish within a short period of time”. (ibid.) Therefore the Church should not simply respond to “external facts and needs”, “isolated from the mystery of the Church” (ibid.).
Much of what has been happening in Germany in recent times probably looks to the Pope like the activist undertakings of a quasi-political association, a “pious non-governmental organization”, as he has often described it in other contexts. And indeed, some things uttered on behalf of the Church time and again appear to demand just that – without consideration of preconditions of Faith and in contradiction to freely receiving the faithful gift of becoming.
Tensions and imbalances instead of adaption
Pope Francis speaks in his letter several times of “tension” and “adaptation”. He warns of “adapting [the life of the Church] to the currently prevailing logic or to that of a particular group” (5), and of establishing an “order which then puts an end to the very tensions that are inherent in our humanity and which the Gospel seeks to provoke” (ibid.). “We must not forget that there are tensions and imbalances which have the taste of the Gospel, which must be maintained because they promise new life” (ibid.). Evangelization is “not a ‘retouching’ which adapts the Church to the spirit of the times but makes her lose her originality and her prophetic mission” (7). Rather, it is a matter of “recognizing the signs of the times, which is not synonymous with mere adaptation to the spirit of the times (cf. Rom 12:2)” (8).
Much of what was said before the synodal process is predicated on an anxious need to not lose touch with the world’s plurality and the intention of closing the gap between the Church and the reality of life. Pope Francis dismisses this argument decisively.
Reclaiming the primacy of evangelization
Instead, “it is necessary to regain the primacy of evangelization (…) because the Church, the bearer of evangelization, begins by evangelizing herself” (7). It should be “our main concern to encounter our brothers and sisters, especially those who can be found on the thresholds of our church doors, on the streets, in prisons, in hospitals, in public squares and cities. The Lord expressed himself clearly: ‘But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well’ (Mt 6:33)”. (8). “It is the holiness ‘from next door’ (…) that protects and has always guarded the Church against every ideological, pseudo-scientific and manipulative reduction.” (ibid.)
For this the Pope demands a basic attitude of “vigilance and conversion” (12), an “attitude of withdrawal” (ibid.), and he refers to “true spiritual remedies (prayer, penance and adoration)” (ibid.). Joy should be the defining factor: “Evangelization leads us to regain the joy of the Gospel, the joy of being Christians”. (7)
Have we abandoned the primacy of evangelization in Germany, and lost, through obstinacy and defiance, the joy of Faith? Pope Francis spells out clearly what he means by evangelization and encountering the poor, and he criticizes any reduction thereof to mere adaptations, administrative reforms, and tendencies to isolation. He thus calls us to think bigger, to step outside of our own homes and to spread the Good News in word and deed.
Do not downplay conflicts by way of polls
In his letter, the Pope does not comment on formal technical details of the synodal process (such as its regulation, voting rules, etc.), but the following words are thought provoking: “The synodal view does not remove contradictions or confusion, nor does it subordinate conflicts to decisions of ‘good consensus’ that compromise faith as a result of censuses or surveys on this or that subject.” Rather, it is about the “centrality of evangelization and the Sensus Ecclesiae as determining elements of our ecclesial DNA” (11).
Incidentally, Francis uses the term “Sensus Ecclesiae” five times in the letter, which he deploys in a universal sense, and he avoids the term “Sensus fidelium” which is theologically and ecclesiastically founded, but is sometimes misunderstood as “groupthink” or mere majority opinion.
A synodal togetherness and the Sensus Ecclesiae obviously mean more to Pope Francis than to suppress conflicts, so to speak, technically, by votes or by polls or relying on false compromises “which subvert the faith”.
Is the contents of the letter surprising?
Not for those who have followed the Pope’s statements on the topics that the synodal process is to work on and decide. And not for those who listen to the Pope on fundamental questions of renewal and evangelization.
On the ordination of women to the diaconate, he has repeatedly called for restraint, even after several studies: “I cannot make a sacramental decree without a theological, historical basis,” he replied to those who demanded it.
In 2016, on his return flight from Sweden, he was asked whether he could imagine the ordination of women to the priesthood. His answer was clear: he referred to his predecessor John Paul II, who had spoken the last word with his “No”. “And that remains.” In response to a question asked by the journalist, Pope Francis referred to the Petrine and Marian dimensions of the Church and briefly explained them.
Perhaps some still remember his various statements on the conditions for admission to the priesthood. He expressly excludes the dissolution of celibacy thus: “The sentence of Saint Paul VI comes to mind: ‘I would rather give my life than change the law of celibacy’. This occurred to me, and I would like to say it, because it is a courageous sentence, in a more difficult time than this one, in the years around 1968/70 … Personally, I think that celibacy is a gift for the Church. Secondly, I do not agree to allow optional celibacy, no. Only for the remotest places would some possibility remain…” (Return flight from Panama, 27.01.2019). For the Amazon region just such an exception is, as is public knowledge, in discussion.
In addition, the Holy Father has repeatedly called problematic the presence of homosexual men in seminaries, and affirmed a corresponding regulation of the competent Congregation, which has led to weeks of fierce debate in Germany.
The letter “Maschio e femmina li creó” (“As man and woman he created her”) on the gender question, which the Congregation for Catholic Education published recently, has so far also received predominantly public malice and criticism from the Church in Germany.
What does this mean for the “synodal process”?
Following this papal letter, simply “carrying on as planned” is no longer an option, neither in content nor in form. Actually, the letter urges a complete rewriting of the process, which should be directed towards evangelization and spiritual renewal and towards “the people on the margins”; a process which does not “do” or “adapt”, but relies on God who can renew and convert and give us the joy of the Gospel; and a process which in all concerns goes with the community of the Catholic Church, which encompasses time and space.
During our ad limina visit, Pope Francis told us to take to heart the following – and perhaps we could also summarize his letter in this way: “The renewal of structures demanded by pastoral conversion can only be understood in this light: as part of an effort to make them more mission-oriented, to make ordinary pastoral activity on every level more inclusive and open, to inspire in pastoral workers a constant desire to go forth and in this way to elicit a positive response from all those whom Jesus summons to friendship with himself (Evangelii gaudium, 27)”.
[…]
The “seers” have attributed numerous moronic statements to their vision, especially in the early days. The Mother of Christ can not say stupid things. Case closed. The juvenile delinquents caught smoking and trying to lie their way out of trouble by snottily claiming they say the Virgin Mary were exposed at the beginning. The fact that this idiocy is taken seriously only speaks to the dire state of the Church.
I agree. There are silly aspects even with the early visions. The later ones, with their daily banal offerings, do not inspire confidence in a supernatural origin. I will continue to exercise my privilege of not believing in Medjugorje.
Why does no one comment on the bad fruit? The “apparitions”served as a conduit for spreading Maria Valtorta’s vile work, The Poem of the Man-God, all over the world. One of the seers even claimed that the Virgin had told her that the Poem was good to read.
I’m not a Medjugorje follower but I do have to say that without exception every single person I know who’s made a pilgrimage there has returned the better for it. And some were greatly better & greatly changed. Major, lasting conversions.
Years ago, I interviewed a celebrity priest who was a big fan of Medjugorje. He described how the teens on a pilgrimage he led had prayed there for him to stop smoking. Instant cure. But he was waving a cigarette around as he told his anecdote, claimed that now he “only smoked when he chose to.” Uhuh. He was later disgraced for improper behavior with teenage boys.
I had lots of friends who went to Medjugorje and felt it was a profound experience. But followers of “seers” later proven to be frauds thought their messages were profound, too.
The Church has made a pact with the Gospa: it recognizes the Queen of Peace, Mother of the Church, listens to her messages, walks and fights alongside her, and ascends Calvary with the Madonna. All of this is implied by the “nihil obstat.” After the fall of the empire of evil, there will be the triumph of the Immaculate Heart and of the Church. The Prefect Cardinal’s report could not foresee the future, but this apocalyptic scenario, which does not concern only Marian devotees, is opened precisely by the “nihil obstat.”
The call to conversion and holiness was emphasized by the Cardinal, but for us Marian followers, the message of Medjugorje must be presented in its entirety. Just as Fatima was not only a light of holiness, so too Medjugorje is a great historical prophecy, a singularity that could not have been highlighted at yesterday’s press conference. The singularity is the revelation of the presence of God and Satan in the history of salvation, which will become evident during the secrets, except the third. The first element is the threat of a world war, and the second is apostasy—that is, modernism, the dissolution of faith, not just in the physical world.
Well, we each have different experiences of course. I’m neither a Medjugorje believer or non believer. I just like to keep an open mind.
It’s certainly possible to make a pilgrimage to a Marian shrine & return home unchanged. That’s our choice & how free will works. But I’m glad my in laws & friends returned for the better. And are still walking in the right path.
Fr. Spitzer also recommends Valtorta’s “vile” work in his books, so someone might want to talk to him about that. In seriousness, Fr. Spitzer is a brilliant man. If Fr. Spitzer recommends the books, there just might be another side to the story.
I laid out my case against Valtorta on this site three years ago. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/09/14/a-monument-to-pseudo-religiosity-a-case-against-the-poem-of-the-man-god/
My essay, one of several I’ve done on this topic, is based on close reading of the entire POEM. A fundamental problem is its claim to correct the New Testament because the evangelists just didn’t write what God wanted. It’s riddled with historical errors, creepy sexual subtexts, and vicious, pervasive antiJudaism. If Fr. Spitzer would care to discuss this with me, I would be happy to do so privately.
“Valtorta’s vile work”. I have read all 10 volumes of Maria Valtorta’s work and attended the First International Valtorta Conference in Viareggio on October 22-23, 2016. Though I lack academic credentials, my perspective is quite different from the mainstream views.
Maria Valtorta was born in Caserta on March 14, 1897, and suffered from poor health throughout her life. Her condition worsened to the point that, from Good Friday of 1934, she was bedridden until her death.
In 1925, inspired by reading *The Story of a Soul* by Saint Thérèse of the Child Jesus (1873-1897), Valtorta offered herself to God for the salvation of souls. Seeking a meaningful path within the Catholic Church, she joined Catholic Action and the Third Order of Saint Francis. In 1943, she began her great endeavor: between January 1944 and April 1947, she wrote approximately 11,000 pages without any revisions, documenting the life of Jesus with astonishing detail. This work was first published in 1956 under the title *The Poem of the Man-God*, and since 1993, it has been known as *The Gospel as It Was Revealed to Me*. These ten volumes, translated into thirty languages, have since garnered significant scholarly attention.
Remarkably, as of 2012, it has been discovered that Valtorta’s descriptions align perfectly with advanced archaeological and historical research. Even her references to celestial bodies—the Moon, stars, and planets—are consistent with modern astronomical findings and match the timeline she presents in the narrative.
These findings have cast new light on the work’s history, especially considering that it was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books in 1959. That year, the Holy Office evaluated numerous visionary messages, including 295 others, and also banned devotion to Divine Mercy, which was promoted by the Polish nun Faustina Kowalska (1905-1938), who was later canonized in 2000. On January 5, 1960, *L’Osservatore Romano* published the decree placing Valtorta’s work on the Index, accompanied by an unsigned article describing it as “a poorly fictionalized life of Jesus.” The article claimed that biblical scholars would find many historical and geographical errors, though no specific examples were cited. In fact, subsequent studies have proven the opposite, affirming the accuracy of her descriptions.
Valtorta’s work reconstructs the life of a mystic who offered herself as a victim to God for the salvation of souls. She presented the life of Jesus with vivid detail, recounting scenes with striking clarity—down to the phrases spoken, the colors, and even the scents—bringing immense spiritual benefit to her readers.
On the topic of Marian apparitions, I think we often misunderstand because we try to be overly clever. For example, in today’s Gospel (Mark 9:30-37), Jesus plainly tells his Apostles that he will be arrested, killed, and then rise from the dead, yet they did not grasp his meaning. Why not? Because they insisted on interpreting his words in symbolic or mystical ways. This serves as a reminder that, in matters of faith, belief often precedes understanding—faith leads reason, not the other way around.
As Peter Kreeft insightfully noted, this pattern has repeated throughout Christian history. There have always been three approaches: the “faith alone” fundamentalists, the “reason over faith” liberals, and the “both-and” defenders of orthodox Christianity. This threefold pattern can also be seen in the reception of Marian apparitions.
Fatima stands as a profound source of light and holiness, but it is much more than that. It is a monumental historical prophecy. Cardinal Caffara and, later, Pope Benedict XVI both recognized its unique significance—these were two brilliant minds and staunch defenders of the faith.
Fatima reveals the presence of both God and Satan in the history of salvation. This revelation continues through the messages of the Virgin Mary at Medjugorje, and indeed, implicitly through all her messages. In the early days, she spoke explicitly about her secrets—aside from the third secret, which concerns a heavenly event, the others pertain to unfolding historical events. These are not esoteric speculations but real occurrences we can witness today.
Two key elements stand out. First, the world, particularly in the Middle East and Ukraine, is driven by hatred and seems to be on the path to total destruction. This could happen in a matter of months. For the past two years, there have been threats of launching tactical nuclear bombs, and the longer this continues, the more likely it becomes.
Second, there is a growing dissolution of faith, as foreseen by Saint Paul VI. He recognized that the true crisis today is one of faith. Within the Church itself, an ideology is taking root that undermines Christianity—this ideology is modernism.
Paolo, lucky you. Read the books again and you will learn more. And do not worry too much about the criticisms of Ms Meisel and others. The book’s critics come and go. The book has prospered and is in the hands of over 20 million people bebause who know it is real. The critics are upset because the book has suceeded so well. It is for real.
And, unfortunately, so are vicious insults to the honor and dignity of the Mother of God real. Satan doesn’t care if we exit the faith stage left or stage right. If the phoniness of progressivisim doesn’t seduce souls, the phoniness of false piety can be used to seduce souls.
How much “theology” does it take to “analyze” such idiotic statements like “Gospa” saying “All religions are the same. It is only man who has made divisions between religions.” On the occasion when she “invited the Devil” to make a guest appearance with her, she explained that she did so to prove that the devil was real. On the many occasions when the “seers” have sold the privilege of attending their vision to touch the garments of their vision, for a hefty fee, Their vision throws fits that the visitors are getting her garments “dirty” and will have to get angels in heaven to dry clean them. Their vision has also proposed betting odds on soccer matches. In the early days the vision told them a story of the town drunk, who was given a bloody handkerchief by Jesus walking along the road, and told by Jesus to throw it in the river. Had he failed to do so, the world would have ended. Wow, we sure dodged a bullet on that one.
And the local bishops dodged the vengeance of Jesus when the vision revealed that Jesus is “losing His patience” with them, and if they don’t approve of the apparitions, he might have to come down and “beat them up.”
How much stupidity is necessary for “open minds?” And how many divorced couples among Medjhead fanaticism are necessary to begin to question “fruits.”
I would say that more than the messages—which the Cardinal Prefect clearly stated during the press conference should be understood and individually corrected by considering them as a whole—what is more theologically relevant is the fact that we must not confuse the current beginning of eschatological peace, which is possible even now, though amid many evils and sufferings, and which can be the subject of private revelations (as in the case of Fatima and also Medjugorje), with the future full and final peace, which is only the subject of public revelation.
Warning and judging humanity is not the role of a private revelation, which must be verified by Rome; it belongs solely to Christ, whose message obviously does not need to be supervised.
However, it is striking to see how Catholic media (not to mention secular media) seek to downplay, diminish, or obscure the Pope’s Note. But the recognition by Rome, that is, by the Church, with this Note, is total and full. It does not pronounce on the supernatural, but the recognition of the fruits is extraordinary because the presence of the Virgin Mary is continuous. Both laypeople and Catholics are strangely anesthetized. The world stands on the eve of a global conflagration, driven by the “Empire of Evil” (as Israeli President Herzog recently said) and by the theologians of Armageddon.
(This is by the way the main problem with Orthodox Christianity, at least within its hierarchies: being a support for the state, even to the point of suggesting a new apocalypse. On May 7, 2024, after Vladimir Putin’s inauguration ceremony, Patriarch Kirill said: “May God grant that the end of the century coincides with the end of your time in power. You have everything you need to carry out this great task in service to the homeland for a long time and with success.” (Michael Epstein, *A New Apocalypticism*, August 8, 2024, *La nuova Europa*). Here, the word “century” is not a temporal definition (since Putin cannot live another 76 years), but a translation of the Greek word “eon,” meaning our entire world. Moreover, this threat to destroy the world in the event of a Russian defeat was made explicitly by Kirill himself on January 19, 2023. “This desire to defeat Russia,” he said, “has taken on very dangerous forms. We pray to the Lord to enlighten these madmen (that is, the Westerners) and help them understand that any desire to destroy Russia will mean the end of the world.”).
This scenario should be clear to all, and we should be grateful to the Queen of Peace, who has come to save this world.
The recognition of the supernatural will come very soon, when the sign of the mountain appears. Through the great tribulation will come the time of peace.
I heard that, until the messages are finished, they cannot rule on the authenticity of Medjugorje. The fruits do seem to be positive, but it is the content of the messages that need to be analyzed theologically. So, no definitive ruling can happen for now.
Heidi, I believe that the messages have ceased. I say this because I recall reading a little blurb in a Catholic publication or website reporting that Our Lady had stated that this was her last message. It is also reported that she previously said that once her appearances/messages at Medjugorje ceased, that the chastisements would begin. This was in January of 2020.
As an aside, I had occasion to visit Saint James in Medjugorje while I was stationed in Bosnia. Two things struck me: 1. Why was a pastor inspired decades previous to raise such a sizeable church for such a small village, and 2., there was absolutely no battle damage in the village. The entire country was severely battle damaged. I would know. I was in Civil Affairs and I toured all over BiH. To have one village completely untouched is extraordinary to say the least.
The visions have not ceased for all of the seers. For some of them, yes. And under the Vatican’s new norms for discerning apparitions, there is never any official positive judgment passed on the supernatural origin of apparitions. The best you will get is a “nihil obstat”, i.e. nothing obstructs one from believing…and that was the judgment given yesterday regarding Medjugorje.
But common sense and decency and a respect for the Mother of God does.
I think that people have a deep experience of the faith that they bring with them.
Pay attention to the distinction they make between “pastoral” and “doctrinal”. This distinction is wrong, as if pastoral were a parallel path to doctrinal. True pastoral can never ignore doctrine.