Catholic Church Conservation is reporting that the Chairman of the German Bishop’s Conference has denied that Christ suffered and died for our sins.
There’s video over at CathCon but it’s in German (obviously). If any of our readers speak German we’d love to have a full translation. I hope he wasn’t simply misspeaking. But the quotes I’ve seen seem pretty damaging.
Here’s CathCon on the growing controversy:
For the Chairman of the German Bishops’ Conference who has fallen away from the Catholic Faith, the crucifixion of Christ is just a psychological support in suffering. On Holy Saturday, the Archbishop of Freiburg and head of the German Bishops Conference, Msgr. Robert Zollitsch, denied the Expiatory Death of Christ.
Archbishop Zollitsch said this in an interview with Meinhard Schmidt-Degenhard on the program “Horizente” of the German TV station ‘Hessischer Rundfunk’,
Christ was “did not die for the sins of the people as if God had provided a sacrificial offering, like a scapegoat” – said the archbishop.
The Saviour had simply expressed “solidarity” with the suffering of the people even to death
He had shown that even suffering and pain were taken up by God. According to Mons. Zollitsch “that is this great perspective, this tremendous solidarity,” that he went so far that he suffered all “with” me.
Schmidt-Degenhard added after this: “You would now no longer describe it in such a way that God gave his own son, because we humans were so sinful? You would no longer describe it like this? ”
Archbishop Zollitsch confirmed his fall from the Catholic faith with a clear “no”:
God had given “his own son in solidarity with us unto this last death agony” to show: So much are you worth to me, I go with you, and I am totally with you in every situation.”
Finally, the archbishop said one’s own sins were responsible that Christ “has become so involved with me”. (Cathcon- he seems to row back a tiny way here, but nothing like as far as his original denial went).
“He has become involved with me out of solidarity – from free will.”
Christ had “taken up what I have been blamed for, including the evil that I have caused, and also to take it back into the world of God and hence to show me the way out of sin, guilt and from death to life.”
This certainly seems troubling. I would clearly want to look into this further but here’s some facts about Msgr. Zollitsch according to Wikipedia:
He has expressed his belief that priestly celibacy should be voluntary rather than law and that it is not “theologically necessary”[3], as well as supporting children’s day-care nurseries as opposed to stay-at-home mothers, and the establishment of legal guidelines for homosexual marriages by the German Church.
Zollitsch accepts civil unions by states but is against Same-sex marriage. [4]
For more, check out Notes on The Culture Wars and CathCon.
April 21, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Gimme an E!
E!
Gimme an X!
x!
Gimme a COMMUNICATE!
COMMUNICATE!
What does that spell?!
April 21, 2009 at 10:15 pm
He sounds like an Episcopalian.
However I think the CDF should question him and find out what he really means. The language is too vague for it to be easy to pin a certain heresy on him. He might be denying that Christ’s death is an atonement for sin, or he might be intending only to deny one theory of the atonemenht, that is, penal substitution.
Priestly celibacy is not theologically necessary; it is a long standing discipline of the western church. The issue of day care vs stay at home mothers is not a matter of doctrine and the opinon of a bishop about it is no more valid than the opinion of any layperson, one way or the other.
The last bit seems contradictory. He is for the establishment of legal guidelines for homosexual marriages by the German Church?
Does he mean, canon law guidelines? Those are made for the whole Latin rite church at the same time, not by “the German Church” or “the American Church.”
(The other sui juris churches have a different code of canon law.)
In any case, you can’t provide in canon law for something impossible and nonexistent, ie “marriage” between two people of the same sex, nor for a contract between two people to engage only with each other in an act which is morally wrong. But then he says, he is against same sex marriage but accepts civil unions by states. Well, we all of us may soon have no choice but to accept civil unions by states-which may be called marriage- because our political efforts to prevent our governments from doing this may fail. In what sense does he mean that he accepts it? Accepting it because ones political efforts to stop it have failed is a long way from saying the Church should make provision for it. What is he talking about? How old is he? Is there a chance there is some early senile dementia involved?
April 22, 2009 at 1:18 am
Let’s not rush to judgment. I agree with eulogos that the language is very vague. The clear “no” is disconcerting but Msgr Zollitsch clearly goes on to affirm that 1) God had given his own son and 2) that Chirst had taken up what I have been blamed for.
I would (reading it charitably) conclude that his Grace is rejecting a particularly form of atonement theology, i.e. penal substitution involving the wrathful vengeful God needing sacrifice – a theory which has alot to answer for.
If I were asked the question to which his Grace answered a clear “no”, I would have have said “Yes, and let me explain what I understand that to mean” and I would go on to explain that the crucifixion is is a sign (in the snese of Real Presence) of God’s infinite love, not his infinite wrath.
Couldnt we interpret it this way?
April 22, 2009 at 2:29 am
To Anonymous – I think we could interpret it the way you have described.
The problem is that we need interpretations in the first place. His explanations are very vague and wishy-washy. Therein lies the problem. In trying to reach people, clerics way too often make the mistake of proclaiming and practicing a vague faith.
I wasn’t too impressed, neither by the archbishops demeanor nor by his responses as they seem very superficial.
Blessings, Mum26
April 22, 2009 at 2:38 am
This seems to be the other side of the coin of the heresy condemned by the Council of Trent, which most people seem to hold in these benighted days, that Original Sin is transmitted not by generation, but by imitation. Atleast, to my ears, the two statements sound to be logically consequent upon each other.
April 22, 2009 at 4:03 am
Thank you Mum26 (im the first Anonymous).
On this point, but slightly off track, I think we do need to ackonlwedge that teaching and proclaming the faith can be difficult task. Because we want to proclaim the faith in all of its full and difficult glory – and make it intelligible.
The episcopalian solution is to water it all down to make it easier to hold. This is wrong, and leaves us holding something that is not worth having (The analogy with Lucky Jack gradually exchanging his lump of gold for a horse, cow, a goose and a whetstone in Papa Bene’s Introduction to Christianity is a masterpeice).
All that told however, I think we should not confuse “vagueness” with “mystery”. All of our articles of Faith should be proclaimed loud and unambiguously – but always with the acknowledgement that there is far more to them that we can undertand and that, once we think we have pinned downed there is more to discover. Such a stance towards revelation is not vague; it just respects the awe.
God Bless you all, Dad38
April 22, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Yeah, I’m not sure what he means really. It sounded like gibberish. If he’s only against the Western doctrine of substitutionary atonement though, then I guess that’s okay since the Eastern Church is too, primarily because we have a problem with the wording of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement#Belief_in_the_Doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement
April 22, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Thanks, Dad38.
Archbishop Zollitsch had a real teaching moment here as the questions were actually quite good. The journalist gave the impression of being serious about having real and honest answers to straight questions. Not only did Archbishop Zollitsch water down the answers, but he also missed a great opportunity to teach about our faith – and yes the words sin and mystery as well as redemption, God’s immeasurable mercy, etc. should have been part of it. He gave totally unsatisfactory explanations.
Besides, his language as well as demeanor was typical for “Episcopalian Catholic Clergy” – something like trying to be liked more by your fellow human beings than by God? A disease rampant here in the US also. Let great teaching moments slip by so you look good in the eyes of others….the word collegiality comes to mind.
Blessings, Mum26
April 22, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Thanks, Dad38.
Archbishop Zollitsch had a real teaching moment here as the questions were actually quite good. The journalist gave the impression of being serious about having real and honest answers to straight questions. Not only did Archbishop Zollitsch water down the answers, but he also missed a great opportunity to teach about our faith – and yes the words sin and mystery as well as redemption, God’s immeasurable mercy, etc. should have been part of it. He gave totally unsatisfactory explanations.
Besides, his language as well as demeanor was typical for “Episcopalian Catholic Clergy” – something like trying to be liked more by your fellow human beings than by God? A disease rampant here in the US also. Let great teaching moments slip by so you look good in the eyes of others….the word collegiality comes to mind.
Blessings, Mum26
April 22, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Oh dear – why did that show up twice now?
Apologies.
Blessings, Mum26
April 23, 2009 at 1:46 am
Thanks Mum26
After reading your recent post I went back and watched the interview (I didnt watch in the first instance because my german is a little rusy 🙂 ).
I agree with you that (even not speaking the language) it is apparent that the setting and tone of the interview suggest that more time and better nuance could have been used.
Its interesting to here you describe the disease rampant in the US of clergy trying to appeal more to man that God. I wouldnt know that because im in Australia (I ordinarily would have said Anglican rather than Episcoplain in my first post). From an outsiders perspective, I always see the clergy in the US (particularly the bishops) as being particularly muscular in their Christianity – a trend that is slowly taking hold here in Australia.
So nice to share thoughts we others around the world.
God Bless,
Dad38
April 23, 2009 at 6:22 am
The CathCon quote is — at least in part — a mistranslation, right in the first sentence of the answer.
The bishop’s answer doesn’t reject the idea that God provided a victim for sin, but rather that he needed one.
The Archbishop said:
“He did not die for the sins of men because God had needed a victim, that is, a scapegoat, for sin. He entered into solidarity with us men, with our suffering, even unto the end; and showed that in the suffering of man, every pain and even death is taken up by God and transfigured by God in His Son Jesus Christ.”
The bishop’s point is to reject an image of the atonement that portrays God the Father as vengeful while the God the Son is merciful.
Now, I haven’t gone on to take down and translate the entire video clip, but this is enough to suggest that some of the fuss is not justified.