Investigations against Cardinal also on suspicion of perjury

New charges against the Cologne Cardinal: a letter Woelki wrote to the Vatican is now being scrutinised again. How does his signature fit in with the statement that he does not know the contents? Serious consequences could be the result.

Following a complaint, the Cologne public prosecutor's office is now also investigating Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki of Cologne on suspicion of perjury. Due to the factual connection, the accusation will be combined with another case already pending, senior public prosecutor Ulf Willuhn told the Catholic News Agency (KNA) on Tuesday. In 2022, the prosecuting authority had begun investigations into allegations of false affidavits.

According to Willuhn, the complaint accuses Woelki of having told the untruth before the Cologne Regional Court at the end of March. The archbishop, who sued against representations in the "Bild" newspaper, was personally questioned as a party in the press law proceedings. According to section 154 of the Criminal Code, perjury in court is punishable by imprisonment of not less than one year, and in less serious cases by imprisonment of six months to five years. According to section 156 of the Criminal Code, a false affirmation in lieu of an oath is punishable by imprisonment of up to three years or a fine.

The case is about when Woelki had knowledge of two documents incriminating a priest he had promoted. Woelki is defending himself - also in the form of an affidavit - against the "Bild" portrayal that he was aware of a police warning against the priest's involvement in youth work and a transcript of a conversation with a man containing accusations when he was promoted in 2017. According to the transcript of the conversation, the cardinal declared under oath in court that no one had even told him about this "until today". In contrast, the prosecutor refers to a letter Woelki sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome in November 2018. In it, all the accusations against the promoted priest are reported, including the document in question.

Archdiocese of Cologne reacts

On Tuesday, the Archdiocese reiterated its statement of April that Woelki's letter to Rome did indeed refer to the interview protocol, but without adopting details. Therefore, there was no contradiction to his statements in court. According to the statement, the cardinal had signed the letter, the content of which had been prepared by the competent specialist office on his own responsibility, but "he cannot recall details of a letter to the Vatican referring to the documents in question". The archdiocese further stated that Woelki expressly supports the clarification and processing of the facts by the public prosecutor's office.

In a judgement pronounced at the end of April, the Cologne Regional Court had ruled in favour of the Cardinal. The issue was what he had known in 2017 at the time of the priest's promotion. The Axel Springer publishing house announced that it would appeal. Beyond the press law proceedings, the public prosecutor's office is also continuing to investigate the question of when Woelki knew what. After the former secretary of Woelki's predecessor, Cardinal Joachim Meisner, testified before the press chamber that she had already reported to Woelki around 2010, during his time as auxiliary bishop of Cologne, about what she saw as the priest's transgressive behaviour, the authorities started investigations because of a possible false statement.

In addition, the public prosecutor's office is investigating the accusation of another false statement. The reason is a "Bild" report on the abuse allegations against the ex-president of the children's missionary organisation "Die Sternsinger", Winfried Pilz (1940-2019). The clergyman spent his retirement in the diocese of Dresden-Meissen, which had already not been informed about the allegations by Meisner. Woelki rejects the "Bild" statement that he had decided against making the announcement. In this case, the civil proceedings have been concluded - the Regional Court ruled in favour of the Archbishop.

Source