Cologne, Germany, Feb 3, 2020 / 11:30 am (CNA).- A leading lay Catholic in the German city of Cologne has openly condemned his own archbishop for voicing concerns over the ongoing “binding synodal process” underway in the country.
Tim Kurzbach, chairman of the Diocesan Council of Catholics in the Archdiocese of Cologne issued a public denunciation of Cardinal Rainer Woekli on Monday, accusing the cardinal of “destroying the authority of his episcopal office” by failing to support the so-called “synodal way.”
The statutes for a “synodal way” were formally adopted by the German bishops’ conference in September last year, despite repeated warnings and interventions from the Pope Francis and the curia. The two-year process proposes to debate and reform issues of universal Church teaching and discipline, including clerical celibacy, Church-approved blessings for same-sex couples, and the sacramental ordination of women.
After months of controversy, including several interventions by the Vatican, the synodal assembly met for the first time last week in Frankfurt. Speaking after the session, Cardinal Woekli said that speeches at the meeting had made it clear to him that the assembly was not functioning as a Catholic body.
“I basically saw all my fears confirmed. We witnessed the implementation of a de facto Protestant church parliament,” Woekli said in an interview Feb. 1.
“The essential prerequisites of an ecclesiological nature with regard to what the Catholic Church is were – in my opinion – ignored in many speeches,” the cardinal said, explaining that the hierarchical communion of the Church was being set aside for a democratic reinvention of the faith.
“That was already the very clearly defined image when entering the [liturgical] service, when bishops and lay people all processed in together and thus it was expressed that everyone is equal. And that actually has nothing to do with what the Catholic Church is and means.”
In his statement on Monday, Kurzbach said that Woekli and a few “traditionalists” were “overwhelmed by the fact that suddenly everyone can speak with equal rights in the ‘synodal way’,” and accused the cardinal of refusing to listen to those demanding reforms and insisting on the authentic teaching authority of the Church and bishops.
Calling the synodal discussions “fearless,” Kurzbach said that bishops like Woekli had to convince the assembly of their defense of traditional Church teachings and that “he should have long since recognized that the office [of bishop] alone no longer establishes true authority.”
In an interview Saturday, Woekli was asked about the seating in the synodal assembly, in which all participants were seated alphabetically and not by group or status. “I can live with that,” said the cardinal, but explained that the so-called synodal process was proceeding in a way which undermined the teachings of Vatican Council II.
The seating arrangements were just one of “many other small sings” which “simply make it clear that the hierarchical constitution of the Church, as documented again in Vatican Council II and expressed in Lumen Gentium, is questioned,” Woekli said.
Pope Francis and curial officials issued repeated warnings to the German bishops last year ahead of the synodal process.
In a June letter to the whole Church in Germany, the pope warned against a false synodality rooted in making the Church conform to modern secular morals and thought, which he called “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.”
In response, Woelki urged the other bishops in Germany to “take the pope very seriously.” He told the plenary session of the German Episcopal Conference in September that the Church in Germany must begin by “re-evangelizing itself” as an “indispensable prerequisite” for its wider mission, noting that Francis’ letter made clear that this required the bishops to remain rooted in the essential unity of faith, in Christ, and with the whole Church.
“This is the indispensable sign for our synodal way, which has to run like a thread through it, so that the Synodal Way can bear true fruit. The Pope’s letter leaves no doubt about that,” the cardinal said at the time.
Different curial heads also made explicit interventions, first in private, then in public, telling the German bishops that their synodal plans were a challenge to the universality of Catholic teaching and discipline and not valid.
A legal assessment of the German synodal plans from the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts concluded that the German bishops’ plan confers to the synod’s membership the ability to make new policies for the Church in Germany. This, the Vatican concluded, is not acceptable.
The Vatican letter also said that the proposed make-up of the synodal assembly is “not ecclesiologically valid.” It cited the bishops’ proposed partnership with the Central Committee of German Catholics, a lay group that has taken public stances against a range of Church teachings, including on women’s ordination and sexual morality.
The Vatican assessment noted with concern that the Central Committee of German Catholics only agreed to be involved in the process if the synod assembly could make binding policies for the German Church.
“Synodality in the Church, to which Pope Francis refers often, is not synonymous with democracy or majority decisions,” wrote Archbishop Filippo Iannone, head of the PCLT.
“The synodal process must take place within a hierarchically structured community,” the letter added, and any resolutions would require the express approval of the Apostolic See.
On Jan. 27, the secretary of the German bishops’ conference gave a pointed interview insisting that it is “unacceptable” that Rome continue to have full discretion over universal teaching and discipline.
Instead, Fr. Father Hans Langendörfer, SJ, called for other regions to follow the German’s example and effectively force through a new federal model on the Church.
[…]
From Bergoglio’s full text interview on the plane regarding Donatism:
“And to solve this there are two publications that I recommend: one that is an article by Gianni Valente in Vatican Insider where he talks about the Donatists. The danger of the Church today of becoming Donatist by doing all [with] human provisions, that which must be done, but only these, forgetting the other dimensions: prayer, penance, the accusation of one’s self, which we are not used to doing. Both! Because to overcome the spirit of evil is not ‘washing one’s hands,’ saying ‘the devil does it,’ no. We too must struggle with the devil, as we must struggle with human things.”
Please tell me how Bergoglio in any meaningful way defines, understands “Donatism”…or his previously wielded references to “Pelagian and semi-Pelagian?”
Is it just that Bergoglio grabs whatever he can to take on his enemies? Are we forgetting the “spiritual part?” Is that another way of saying we can get too focused on the human/ legal aspect of fighting the sexual scandal? Are we also Pharisees?
Laughable! In the news… It took how many years for Dolan in NY to finally suspend (March 19, 2019) Fr. Miqueli just recently though parishioners in filed a lawsuit (2016) accusing Miqueli of embezzling more than a $1 million dollars and being of being involved in homosexual prostitution and drug use. Check out Catholic NY March 28, 2019 for the noted suspension. Another priest was also recently suspended after an arrest for use/packaging of methamphetamines “along with a 27 year old male.”
Whether it’s the Archdiocese of NY, Chile or France: not much “donatism” really. No fear the sacraments will be made invalid by unworthy ministers (especially in seminaries)..and not much fear really that there is such a thing as receiving the Eucharist “unworthily.”
There’s “donationism” (to bankroll all the lawsuits) but not much “donatism.”
There’s no denying the spiritual dimension, the role of the Devil…but there’s no denying the need for prompt legal action…not simply what gets interpreted as the “canonical” or some imagined “more spiritual” process.
No, one mustn’t ignore the spiritual dimension; but while we’re waiting for the “prayer, penance, the accusation of one’s self” on the part of the abuser, possible future victims must be protected, and justice done on behalf of past victims.
Meanwhile, “child sexual abuse” is not the only, or even the main, problem. Homosexual behavior is.
En flight and at arrival in Rome according to the Pontiff’s somewhat cryptic allusions Am Hierarchy seeking to investigate McCarrick, purge homosexual enabling prelates had misplaced priorities. Apparently fundamentalists who refused to pray, be introspective, accuse themselves. Donatism, the heresy of invalidation of sinful clergy doesn’t fit the Am effort. The Am bishops never raised the question of sacramental validity. Two fundamental premises at play here were introduced in Amoris Laetitia and remain the deceptive solvents diminishing all Catholic doctrine. They are worship of individual conscience a take away by liberals from Vat II and Dignitatis Humanae. Authored by Avery Dulles SJ the progressive Jesuit never set limits in respect to conscientious rejection of the Deposit of Faith, which is always a responsible and fatal error, and the Church’s coercive authority on faith and morals. The other fundamental premise is merciful appeal to mitigating conditions. Mitigation is a reality fear, burden can impede freedom of will to some degree. Although it cannot absolve intrinsically evil acts like murder, killing the innocent, false witness, adultery. The error here is that conditions without universal evidence cannot absolve [allow the priest to validly absolve] manifest inherently evil acts. In respect to the latter conscience becomes the determinant although exceptions to the rule presumably exist [the first marriage of a D&R may have been invalid but lacking evidence]. Personally I cannot perceive how an exception to manifest sin can be determined without evidence. Cardinal Raymond Burke former Pontifical Signatura has consistently refuted the Pontiff’s proposal. And presuming there are such instances the Pontiff in Amoris and elsewhere by pronouncing his doctrine publicly makes it a universal premise [if presuming Amoris Laetitia or the Argentine exchange of letters in AAS are somehow binding though as held by Cardinal Gerhard Mueller they are not binding] obliging the priest to give benefit of the doubt based on the penitent’s conscience. The result has been as in Malta, Sicily, the Philippines and elsewhere dissolution of the commandment against adultery and by inference all other moral doctrine. Evil is not a mistaken priority. Evil is in the will.