In long interview, German Bishop savages Synodal Path. "The goals of the Synodal Path were unrealistic from the start"

Rudolf Voderholzer (65) has been Bishop of Regensburg since 2013. He is considered a harsh critic of the Synodal Path and rarely appears in the press. 

Regensburg Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer, along with Cardinal Woelki, is one of the harshest critics of the Synodal Path in the German Catholic Church. In this interview, he explains his understanding of church and politics.

Bishop Voderholzer, when you heard who the new Pope is: What was your first impression?

I was truly amazed by the innovative power and surprise potential of the Holy Spirit. I knew Pope Leo XIV as Cardinal Prevost from several meetings of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. He made a very calm, thoughtful, very reflective, and wise, intelligent impression on me. He didn't say much, but what he did say had substance.

What does his biography say about him?

Through his North American origins and his work in Peru, he connects the two parts of the American continent. That is a great blessing, a great signal. As Superior General of the Augustinians, he gained worldwide experience, traveled extensively, and is familiar with the universal Church. He accepted the office with all humility, but also with the forms and signs that go with it.

So also with those forms and signs that Francis, unlike his predecessor Benedict XVI, had not used?

A lot of false interpretations were made. The press often thought they saw a difference that, in my perception, didn't exist. Benedict was just as humble as Francis; he just expressed it in a different way.

Do you see any other similarities between the new Pope and Benedict XVI?

It's still too early for that. But Leo XIV's previous speeches have convinced me greatly. They were always about the primacy of God and the resulting implications, including political ones. He often quoted Augustine, as Benedict XVI did.

The Pope is also responsible for the unity of the Church. Is this unity more at risk today than it was 100 or 200 years ago?

The unity of the Church has always been at risk, even after Vatican I, when the Old Catholics split off. It must be continually rebuilt. It is an incredible gift that this worldwide Church exists. It is a network of Eucharistic communities and is held together by the episcopal principle under the head of the Pope. That is why the names of the Pope and the bishop are mentioned in every Eucharistic Prayer: This is not a personality cult, but rather has an ecclesiological function, one that names the essence of the Church. As a Church, we were founded to proclaim the salvation of humanity and the Gospel. And to pray for the Spirit who can bring about this unity on his own. That must be the path. And this requires much contact, much dialogue, much talking and praying together.

How do you perceive this in the Church in Germany? Is dialogue still taking place?

The Church in Germany is a very complex entity. I'll pick out one topic that I consider very crucial to our current situation: Until the 1980s, it was an unwritten rule in Germany that the two archbishops of Munich and Cologne alternated in the chairmanship of the Bishops' Conference. Bishop Lehmann of Mainz then broke this rule when he ran against Friedrich Wetter of Munich. This politicized the office: People were no longer elected because it was their turn, but because they represented a certain ecclesiastical political direction. And majorities gather there, which create minorities, and this drives unity apart.

You have long been advocating for the depoliticization of the office of chairman.

In almost all bishops' conferences around the world that I know of, things are done differently. Back in 2020, I suggested that we should return to a rotating system, extended to the metropolitans (i.e., archbishops). Berlin would be the first, followed by Freiburg, Hamburg, etc. I still believe this is an idea worth considering, in order to remove the ecclesiastical political dimension and thus achieve reconciliation in a different way.

How do you see Bishop Bätzing conducting his office? Looking back over the past few years, what is your impression?

He has fully embraced the project of the Synodal Path, even though he inherited it from his predecessor. I have known him for a long time. We actually got along well. We felt at home on the basis of the theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar and in the Johannes Gemeinschaft (St. John's Community), founded by the Swiss theologian, as our theological home. Unfortunately, I have recently realized that he has distanced himself from important insights of Balthasar. With regard to the issue of gender and its impact on sacramental theology, Bishop Bätzing is of the opinion that Hans Urs von Balthasar would think differently today. I can't understand that at all.

How do you view the relationship between the Church and politics? How political should the Church be?

The Church, in the form of its ministers and bishops, should not engage in politics, but rather enable politics. And should do so through the proclamation and exploration of Catholic social teaching. This is one of the greatest treasures we have. Catholic social teaching provides the criteria for good politics, across party lines.

When should the Church itself speak out?

As bishops, we naturally have a position on the protection of life or human dignity – that of the Basic Law. The concrete day-to-day business, the legislative process in Parliament, is the concern of those elected for this purpose. Fortunately, many of them are committed Christians. As bishops, we provide guidance, and politicians must also accept it when we say that, in our opinion, something is incompatible with the Christian faith. What is important to me regarding the protection of life is that the Church does not have a special religious opinion here, but rather defends the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

The German Bishops' Conference recently published a paper on the AfD. What is your personal position on this?

I supported the paper because, given the seriousness of the situation, it is important that we take a clear position on this issue. However, as I have said publicly several times, I only agreed with the paper once I had achieved that the protection of life was included in the declaration as a criterion for which we as churches stand. I wanted to avoid at all costs a situation where we neglect this important point, which has always served us well as a church, and leave it to others. What I unfortunately failed to achieve was the abandonment of a purely negative identity. By negative identity, I mean defining oneself by what one does not want. We should have made it much clearer that we explicitly encourage young Christians to engage in the political center on the basis of Catholic social teaching.

How do you deal with AfD voters in your diocese?

We don't conduct a test of political conviction. And I have to assume that there are some AfD voters among Catholics as well. But I can also distinguish between a protest stance and an ideologically entrenched position. If the experts are to be believed, a large portion of AfD voters, but also of voters of the Left Party, for example, are protest voters who simply don't see that the current issues and problems are being addressed by the centrist parties. And these parties must also accept that they haven't advanced any solutions on some issues.

The Society of Saint Pius X is also active in your diocese. Where do you draw the line?

The line is clearly the recognition of the Second Vatican Council and the teachings of the Church and its tradition. It's not about Latin or the liturgy. We also have the Fraternity of St. Peter, which celebrates Mass according to the ancient custom but recognizes the Council. With the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, we are experiencing a political theology where truth is placed above freedom. That's not acceptable.

Cathcon:  With such a view of truth, it is difficult to have a proper discussion about the Second Vatican Council.  The Bishop is very hostile to the SSPX which is inconsistent with his view on the primacy of freedom.  He is trying to prove his own credentials when progressives accuse him of being extremist. 

With regard to the social division in the country: Can the Church contribute anything to helping people connect with each other beyond the boundaries of their own sphere?

At least two aspects: When I listen to the old recordings of Wehner and Strauss, I realize: – There used to be a culture of debate where things would sometimes get heated. We don't even know anything like that anymore. That's one thing. The other is, and I said this repeatedly at the beginning of the synodal path: We no longer have a common basis for discussion in the Church. For example, in the synodal path, we don't have a consensus on what constitutes a theological argument, or how to weigh Scripture and tradition on the one hand, and supposedly established findings from the humanities on the other. There's a lot of confusion, and then people talk past each other. That's difficult. And that applies not only to the synodal path, but also to politics.

What would you personally hope for from such a Synodal Path or process in Germany? What would have to happen for you to leave such a meeting satisfied?

We already have many Synodal formats in Germany. In my diocese, for example, there is the Diocesan Committee or the Diocesan Tax Committee, and many more. These are synodal bodies where decisions are wrestled with one another. The image of the all-powerful bishop making the sole decision is a caricature. I experience enough synodal exchanges where I can truly say: It is wonderful to be a Christian, to be Catholic, and to be part of a community that knows it is called to live and proclaim the Gospel and inspire others to do so. During the synodal path, I presented an alternative draft statute with Cardinal Woelki based on Pope Francis's letter of June 2019. We are not against synodality, but against a certain form of synodality that resembles a parliamentary party discourse more than a common listening to God's Word.

Is the Synodal Path too influenced by the example of Protestant synods?

It is shaped by the experience of a certain form of democracy in Catholic associations. However, these are not about questions of faith, but rather about questions concerning the orientation of a Catholic association.

Is this committee-based Catholicism, as we experience it in the ZdK, even representative of the Catholic Church anymore?

I believe it was never representative, nor did it intend to be. I get so much mail from people who say they don't feel represented there. Of course, it's difficult to say what is truly representative of the Catholic population. But my impression is that the broader spectrum of believers can't do much with the ZdK, for example. When I visit parishes, I hear other questions: How do I teach my children to pray? Then, of course, others say: As long as we don't grant marriage to homosexual couples, you won't get your child to pray. Personally, I don't believe it works that way. Otherwise, the Protestant Church would have to flourish.

Where do you see the limits of the Synodal Path?

The goals of the synodal path were unrealistic from the start. Cardinal Woelki and I had proposed, among other things, the topics of evangelization, vocation ministry, and religious education. These are areas where we can bring all our faith, passion, and imagination to bear in order to better position ourselves. The state provides us with the opportunity to offer religious education. But we are increasingly lacking religious education teachers. These are topics that should be discussed: How can we proclaim the Faith credibly?

Cathcon: A clue here to how the Pope may wish to transform rather than destroy the Synodal Path.  But what happens if they refuse to be transformed?

How does the Diocese of Regensburg succeed in proclaiming the Faith credibly?

I don't know whether it will succeed. In any case, we have various innovative projects. I have taken up Pope Francis's 2021 letter, in which he reintroduced the old office of catechist. We have developed a training program for it. For ten Saturdays, people explore the question of how to become articulate about their faith. They then become, for example, supervisors for altar servers: After all, the children and young people who are involved in the church are our greatest asset. With this training, we also promote the leadership of Bible study groups or the accompaniment of pilgrimages. This doesn't create mini-pastors, but people who help in the church and have been commissioned to do so by the bishop. Another point is our Regensburg Sunday Bible: a family book that builds on tried-and-tested forms. This is intended to promote Sunday culture. Families can benefit enormously from consciously living Sunday in their daily lives, with all its challenges, by participating in the church year. I want to promote this. The pastoral dimension of church music is also very important to me.

And how do you approach someone who has never been baptized and for whom the Church has always been something foreign?

That, of course, depends on the pastors who are invited to make home visits. I promote Alpha courses, where you learn the basics of faith. We also have groups that approach people on the street: Night Fever, for example. Thankfully, there are many initiatives where young people feel a genuine missionary impulse and want to pass on the faith. Some people feel drawn to them, others are put off. Or take the Regensburger Domspatzen (Regensburg Cathedral Choir): there are also unbaptized people there. Just recently, I had the pleasure of baptizing a 13-year-old who came to his religion teacher on his own initiative and wanted to be baptized. Because he had learned something about faith through music and now wanted to be part of it.

We can't speak with Rudolf Voderholzer without having discussed nativity scenes at least once. Here in the visitor's room, shortly before Pentecost, is a huge nativity scene. What fascinates you so much about it?

My mother is from Bohemia. And Prague is arguably the cradle of the nativity scene. A nativity scene demonstrates the concreteness of faith. You are there when you look at it. As a bishop, I am also well advised to value such a successful medium for communicating faith. In this respect, for me, it is also an element of evangelization, low-threshold and attractive. You can see this in the Czech Republic, where secularization is much more advanced than here. For many people there, the nativity scene is the only bridge to Christ. The Enlightenment banned nativity scenes from churches, then they migrated into homes. There, it has survived all storms of secularization. The nativity scene is deeply rooted in people's hearts.

And how do you bring Pentecost closer to people?

Pentecost is abstract in a way, but actually very concrete. I have often discussed and thought about this with people: in terms of customs: at Christmas there are presents, the Christ Child comes. At Easter, the Easter bunny comes and brings eggs. And the Holy Spirit? What does he bring? He brings the community of the church, new sisters and brothers. And you have to experience that too. As Christians, we are the gift of Pentecost to each other. Pentecost, the birth of the worldwide church. It is the overcoming of the Babylonian confusion of languages. In the Diocese of Regensburg, the great pilgrimage to Altötting takes place on Pentecost. For many, this is an important experience of faith in the community. This year, well over 1000 predominantly young people come together in the town for the Prayer Festival, not to mention the very traditional formats such as the Whitsun pilgrimage in Bad Kötzting or the candlelight pilgrimage up the Bogenberg. The Holy Spirit brings people together.

Source