Archbishop Gänswein slams Synodal Path in new interview

Archbishop Gänswein sharply criticises German Synodal Path

Archbishop Georg Gänswein is one of the most influential German representatives in the Roman Curia. But after the death of Pope Benedict, it is uncertain where his path will lead him.

Archbishop of the Curia Georg Gänswein has spoken out to the Media Group of Bavaria with sharp criticism of the German Synodal Path. "The loss of faith has rather grown through the Synodal Path," Gänswein said in the interview.

Archbishop, you had a private conversation with Pope Francis. Was it also about this book and your future?

Georg Gänswein: It was less about the book than about Pope Benedict's legacy and then also about my future. Benedict had appointed me as his executor and Pope Francis wanted to know how much time I would need to fulfil this task. I said that I didn't know exactly, but that I assumed it would take two months. That's exactly how long it took.

Recently there was speculation that you would become nuncio to Costa Rica. Do you know more?

Gänswein: I was in a private audience with Pope Francis in March. No, I don't know any more.

You had to move out of Mater Ecclesiae. Have you found a good place to stay in the meantime?

Gänswein: No, I did not have to move out. It was agreed that after the death of Pope Benedict the flat would be dissolved. In the meantime, I live in a house near Santa Martha, where Pope Francis lives.

So you keep running into him?

Gänswein: I don't live in the same house, so I don't run into him. I perform my duties as executor of a will.

What is the estate?

Gänswein: The very largest part of the estate went to the Institute of Pope Benedict XVI in Regensburg, important documents went to the Papal secret archives and to the archives of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Did you inherit a special memento?

Gänswein: Yes, Benedict gave me the tabernacle for my new chapel. From his estate I received a beautiful Bavarian wooden cross that he himself had in his chapel as a Cardinal.

How did it feel to carry out the destruction of private correspondence ordered by Pope Benedict?

Gänswein: That was the most painful moment. The will said that the family's private letters were to be destroyed without exception. He had kept them all carefully bundled. When I had to shred the letters, it was very bitter. But to clear up a misunderstanding: it was only about the letters that the Ratzinger parents wrote to their children or later the siblings wrote to each other. I said to Pope Benedict while he was still alive that I would certainly be criticised for this... But of course I complied with his last wish without any excuses.

In your book, you also address the accusations against Pope Benedict, for example during his time as Archbishop of Munich. Were mistakes made, for example in the answer to the abuse experts?

Gänswein: Benedict's answer to the law firm's questions was very extensive and was prepared with the help of four experts. When the expert report was presented, one of the experts held up a document to the camera and indicated that Benedict had not answered correctly on one point. And that was on the question of whether or not he had been present at an ordinariate meeting in January 1980. The statement said "no" and the minutes he held up to the camera said "yes" and that was correct. Regrettably, one of our experts made a transcription error which came to light when the opinion was presented. As Benedict and I watched the presentation together online on the screen, he immediately told me that this had to be corrected publicly from my side. A mistake was made unintentionally, but it was neither a lie nor a cover-up. Benedict apologised for the error.

Had Benedict and had you misjudged the situation?

Gänswein: It was not a question of a wrong or correct assessment of the situation, but of the truthful recollection of an event 40 years ago. From the beginning, Pope Benedict declared his willingness to personally contribute to the clarification. It was about his time as Archbishop of Munich and Freising from 1977 to 1982. At this point it should be emphasised that we were only able to view the documents and archive records digitally. Accordingly, all this was done under great time pressure. It is almost unavoidable that mistakes happen.

You yourself spoke of the Catholic Church's 9/11 moment in the USA. It must have been clear to you what the situation was, right?

Gänswein: It is true that I described the abuse issue as the 9/11 of the Catholic Church in a lecture. It should be remembered that it was precisely the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Ratzinger, who became a pioneer of enlightenment in the 1990s, which unfortunately was totally forgotten. What he began as prefect, he not only continued as pope, but intensified. That is not fact, that is fact. That is why the accusation following the Munich report that he had lied was not only unjust, but unfounded. Pope Benedict has suffered greatly from this accusation, I have observed.

The Church in Germany is in a deep crisis and wants to free itself from it with the Synodal Path. How do you see this?

Gänswein: I doubt that the Synodal Path, as it developed, was the right answer to the abuse crisis. The Synodal Path was "invented" following the MHG report of 2018. However, the issues that were addressed there go far beyond the necessary response to the abuse crisis. Other countries, for example Austria, have found a different, more convincing solution to this, which was obviously not wanted in Germany. Those who have followed the discussions and decisions of the Synodal Assemblies with a clear eye could see that in the meantime quite different goals have taken centre stage. In the process, the danger has arisen that special paths lead out of the unity of the universal church.

Is there a threat of schism, i.e. a division of the Church?

Gänswein: The paths taken have led to tensions within the Catholic Church in Germany and with the Holy See. I pray and hope that a schism can be prevented. During the ad limina visit of the German bishops at the beginning of November 2022, and afterwards in a letter of response signed by three cardinals of the Curia and approved by Pope Francis, the Vatican clearly and unambiguously indicated limits that must be taken seriously.

But they are far away in Rome.

Gänswein: That is an assertion. The truth is that I see the developments in the German Catholic Church from a different perspective. From this perspective, I do not think the Synodal Path is a helpful answer to the real needs of the faithful. If, as a canonist, I am to judge the whole enterprise of the Synodal Path, I have to say that it has no binding legal force in Canon Law. This is not a question of geographical proximity or distance, it is a sober statement of fact.

Nevertheless, a majority of the German Bishops do not hear these signals from Rome. How do you assess the initiative and the letter to Rome that the Bishops of Passau, Regensburg and Eichstätt, for example, have signed?

Gänswein: Even more Bishops have signed this important request for the future of the dioceses in Germany. The immediate response to this request shows the urgency with which the Vatican is treating this question. It is serious, and I can only hope that the signals, as the question says, will be seen and also taken seriously.

Munich Archbishop Reinhard Marx was one of the initiators of the Synodal Path. Was it a rebuff from Francis that he was no longer appointed to his Finance Council?

Gänswein: You'll have to ask Pope Francis himself. It is at least surprising that he was not renewed in his role. Whether or not that has to do with the Cardinal's behaviour regarding the Synodal Path, I cannot judge.

Proponents of the Synodal Path say that something must be done to counter the loss of confidence. What would be your way?

Gänswein: If anything, the loss of faith has increased as a result of the Synodal Path. The answer must be given from another side, namely by deepening faith and not structural questions. Faith, if I take it seriously, will only awaken to new life through real personal conversion and deepening. This, of course, requires personal effort and determination. It is a struggle and remains a struggle....

So a Church like the early Christians again?

Gänswein: In 1958, a young professor of theology by the name of Joseph Ratzinger wrote an essay entitled "The New Pagans", which spoke almost prophetically of the Church of the future no longer being a people's Church, but a Church of small minorities who live by faith and indeed testify to and pass on the faith in this way. Are we not witnesses of this prophecy?

Doesn't the institution lose influence there?

Gänswein: Certainly in political and social influence. It is not the task and the goal of the Church to gain political influence or even to increase it, but simply to testify to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Good News, in word and deed. That creates influence and that gives back trust.

Source