CNA Deutsch, Sep 10, 2025 / 10:00 am (CNA).
Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, SJ, stated in a recent interview that he “would not define morality — especially sexual morality — as narrowly as the Church does today.”
At the same time, the archbishop of Luxembourg and general relator of the multiyear Synod on Synodality under Pope Francis affirmed that “morality is essential. We cannot do without it.”
In conversation with the Austrian weekly Die Furche, he reflected on his role in the synod, shared insights on the recent conclave, and discussed the prospects for the Church in Europe.
Hollerich urged the Church to move beyond what he described as a backward-looking perspective: “Some look to the past with nostalgia, others with fear. Both are wrong. We are part of a history — this we must accept and learn from. But we must also move forward.”
Synod imagery: Tent vs. family
The Jesuit cardinal spoke in detail about his work on the Synod on Synodality. One concept that emerged during the process was “the image of a tent that needs to be expanded so that everyone can find space within it.” He said this image was “very well received by many” but “not at all in Africa.” There, people said, “a tent reminds us of refugee camps — we want to move beyond tents. In Africa, the preferred image was that of a family.”
Hollerich emphasized that Pope Francis had “insisted” on the participation of laypeople in what had originally been conceived by Pope Paul VI as a Synod of Bishops. “It was a controversial decision — some bishops didn’t like it. It was still a topic at the pre-conclave. But it did a lot of good for the overall atmosphere.”
Pope Leo XIV: ‘Continuity and discontinuity’
Regarding Pope Leo XIV, Hollerich sees “continuity in substance, discontinuity in form” when compared with Pope Francis, adding: “Every pope has his own personality.”
Shortly before his death, Pope Francis approved — while still in the hospital — a document that effectively extended the world synod process by nearly three and a half years by announcing an ecclesial assembly for 2028. Although Pope Leo XIV has since confirmed the plan, it remains unclear what exactly such an ecclesial assembly will entail.
Hollerich explained that such an assembly is “somewhat more flexible than a synod. Canon law dictates who may participate in a synod.” He continued: “I attended an ecclesial assembly in Latin America where participation was split as follows: 20% bishops, 20% priests and deacons, 20% religious, and 40% laypeople. That’s a good mix.”
This story was first published by CNA Deutsch, CNA’s German-language news partner, and has been adapted by CNA.
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.
It might be helpful to have more specifics from the Cardinal.
This court jester, who has outlasted his shelf life, has been specific in the past…
With the mentality of a careerist amoeba, he can’t tell the difference between a distinct “synod of Bishops” within the Apostolic Succession, and a broader and distinctly different “ecclesial assembly”—as in communio.
Sexually, he channels his own pontifications, thusly: “I think that’s wrong. But I also believe that we are thinking ahead here in [terms of] teaching. As the Pope has expressed in the past, this can lead to a change in doctrine. Because I believe that the sociological-scientific foundation of this teaching is no longer correct.” https://www.newwaysministry.org/2022/02/04/leading-cardinal-in-synod-seeks-change-in-church-teachings-on-homosexuality/
The “sociological and scientific foundation”? This forwardist and clericalist-extraordinaire can’t tell the difference between the front and the back!
SUMMARY: the red-hat cardinal fails the red-face test. Don’t let your son or daughter near this self-referential man, or whatever.
Well, obviously Cardinal Hollerich is far more spiritually advanced than St. Paul and St. John — and, yes, Jesus.
Let’s face it. The purpose of marriage is to assure individuals of an uninterrupted supply of easily accessible orgasms.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Any association with reproduction is strictly incidental.
Leave it to those brilliant Jesuiticals to figure everything out for all of us.
Unbelievable. May God help the Church led by such popes and bishops. They go against Holy Scripture and the best thinkers of the Church:
Romans 1:26-27
New International Version
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
New International Version
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a]
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
AND SAINT AUGUSTINE
“Those sins which are against nature, like those of the men of Sodom, are in all times and places to be detested and punished. Even if all nations committed such sins, they should all alike be held guilty by God’s law” (Confessions 3.8).
Catholic morality is not narrow, insofar as it is part of a consistent whole that touches every aspect of life. What it is is sharp, sharper than any two-edged sword. Some things are always wrong, regardless of the number on the calendar or how popular these things might be with the media, the courts, or the voters. Or the seminaries.
I doubt he is really talking about narrowness, but if he is, he probably has a point. Just look at the mess that is the stance of current bishops on the death penalty. This is never about justice, because they wouldn’t win the argument that the death penalty is always unjust — that would, by the way, require them to say that God not merely permitted but COMMANDED something that is always unjust, which is something only a heretic could believe. They don’t even link it to the broader question of how secular leaders responsible for the public good in this life can reconcile justice and prudence with mercy and forgiveness. They instead make the claim that they are wiser and holier than all previous generations, which is why they can contradict their predecessors boldly. Such a claim lacks evidence, to put it mildly. But back to my main point: this is an example of a moral issue which would be better treated if it were treated within a broader context, rather than treated as a narrow exception.
Away with him.
A diabolical man.
Moron Hollerich’s “sociological and scientific foundation:” genome research does not support the fictions of Hollerich. Instead, https://news.yahoo.com/no-gay-gene-study-finds-180220669.html
A selection: “This means that non-genetic factors – such as environment, upbringing, personality, nurture – are far more significant in influencing a person’s choice of sexual partner, just as with most other personality, behavioral and physical human traits, the researchers said.
“The study – the largest of its kind – analyzed survey responses and performed analyses known as genome-wide association studies (GWAS) on data from more than 470,000 people who had given DNA samples and lifestyle information to the UK Biobank and to the U.S. genetics testing company 23andMeInc.”
SUMMARY: About the Hollerich alchemy, Galileo rolls over in this grave.
“Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, SJ, stated in a recent interview that he “would not define morality — especially sexual morality — as narrowly as the Church does today.””
Then he would be wrong, and it is to be hoped that many people tell him so, forcefully.