The Contradictions of Bishop Bätzing

The exercise is well carried out by the one who now has assumed the direction of the perilous path which is being accomplished across the Rhine, but he cannot hide the difficulties and an attentive and informed eye would soon discern the contradictions and the unsaid things that accumulate throughout the text.

The Unsaid Things

Answering the question on the origins, the goals, and the means which the synodal path uses or intends to use, the German prelate glides over certain elements without lingering. But behind this glib tongue, the informed reader knows very well what is hidden.

Thus, when Bishop Bätzing explains the origin of the synodal path, referring to the MHG study on abuses in the German Church, he notes that it has raised questions which “lead to a closer examination of the systemic factors which favored the abuses.” It does not specify that these “systemic factors” are structural elements of the Catholic Church ... which would therefore need to be reformed.

On the nature of the synodal path, the bishop of Limburg specifies that “in terms of Church law, the synodal path is not technically a synod, but a sui generis format.” He fails to say that this form was chosen to avoid following the legal rules, and that the German Bishops' Conference has been singled out for it. But they persisted in this path, allowing themselves to reply curtly to the Curia that it had not understood anything.

A little further on, the president of the German Bishops' Conference gives a very general affirmation: “Faith can grow and deepen if we free ourselves from fears and mental closures, if we ask questions and look for ways in which the Church today can be present for people.”

But what are these fears and mental shutdowns? To read the projects in the synodal path files, they are referring in large part to the traditional doctrine of the Church. Thus, in a characteristic way Bishop Bätzing affirms that “the synodal path commences, to discuss [the blessing of homosexual or divorced-remarried couples] in a broad context that also considers the need, the possibility, and limits of the developing the Church’s magisterium.”

And, the icing on the cake, he adds: “The perspectives presented by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will find space in these debates.” Which means it is just one point of discussion among many. 

Contradictions

Bishop Bätzing repeatedly asserts that he and the German Church are faithful to the universal Church, but he regularly calls into question indisputable elements of Catholic doctrine, directly or indirectly, which constitutes a real contradiction.

A first example appears with the question of the priesthood being reserved to men. The Bishop of Limburg states first of all: “It is important to me to honestly mention the Church’s arguments  as to why only men can enter sacramental ministry.”

But he immediately adds: “I also realize that these arguments are becoming less and less convincing and that arguments have been developed in theology in favor of opening the sacramental ministry to women as well.” In other words, objections made by minds which no longer understand the truth, or which use distorted arguments must be taken into account in the face of the doctrine still affirmed by the Church.

Immediately afterwards, a new contradiction: “This is why I often mention the female diaconate, because I see possibilities there. Regarding the priestly ministry, popes from John Paul II onwards have said in unison that this question has already been answered.”

These two statements are strictly contradictory, at least for anyone who knows their theology. The reason is as follows. The Council of Trent defined - that is to say, proclaimed definitively - that the priesthood is composed of several degrees, three of which are determined: the episcopate, the priesthood, and the diaconate. They therefore belong with certainty to the sacrament of orders.

So to say that the popes - with all of Tradition - have asserted that the priesthood is reserved for men, and at the same time that an essential part of this priesthood can be conferred on women, is contradictory.

Finally, a third contradiction on the binding aspect of the synodal path, which gave rise to a heated exchange between Cardinal Reinhard Marx and the Roman Curia. The answer begins with a general statement: “It is absolutely clear that there are questions that we can only discuss at the level of the universal Church.”

But subsequently, Bishop Bätzing affirms that: “All those who officially participate in this Synodal Path are responsible for the binding nature of its conclusions. Binding implementation will be the responsibility of the Holy See and/or the local bishop, depending on the subject.”

Thus, the synodal path, half formed by lay people, has a binding character. It is only the important but secondary implementation that is entrusted to the competent authority. In a sense, the base has voted, and the authority must implement. This is absolutely contrary to the divine constitution of the Church and the fruit of an intolerable contradiction.

The Dictatorship of Individual Conscience

Finally, it is impossible not to raise this preeminence of individual conscience in the reflection or action of the German prelate. In this case, it is about the conscience of the faithful.

Thus, to justify the iconoclastic proposals - one would have to say schismatic or even heretical - of the forums of the synodal path, Msgr. Bätzing justifies them: “It is on the basis of these questions that people today can judge if they feel as if they belong or not to the Church.”

In other words, because today the world, the faithful, or the media consider that the distribution of power in the Church, the place of women, priestly service, or sexuality [subjects of the four forums] do not conform to their expectation, then there must be a reform of the divine constitution of the Church and a remaking of everything in the image of “modern” conceptions which are anything but Catholic.

Likewise, the prelate explains that “in Germany and in other parts of the Universal Church there has long been a discussion of how to further develop the Magisterium … on the basis of the fundamental truths of faith and morals, the progress of theological reflection, and in a spirit of openness to the latest results of the human sciences and the life situations of people today.”

So is it the conscience of “people today” and the “human sciences” that can advance revelation? A concept that reduces revelation to the common feeling.

Finally, concerning Eucharistic hospitality, Bishop Bätzing explains that “the current debate was about how to deal with the choices of conscience of individual Catholic or Evangelical believers. I personally respect such a decision.” It is thus confirmed, the individual conscience takes precedence over the law of the Church.