Fulda – The autumn assembly of the German Bishops’ Conference concluded in Fulda on September 25, 2025, after beginning on September 22 at the Maritim Hotel next to the Schlossgarten. The assembly was attended by 58 members of the Conference, led by its president, Bishop Georg Bätzing.
Several issues were addressed: from an in-depth analysis of the results of the 6th survey on participation in ecclesial life, examined in both theological and pastoral terms to outline new directions for the Catholic Church, to the handling and clarification of sexual abuse cases, and finally to the ongoing development of the Synodal Path in Germany. On the agenda were also broader historical and international concerns: the situation in the Middle East, an assessment of the Church’s pastoral approach during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the Church’s relationship with Sinti and Roma under National Socialism. The bishops also discussed a statement on voluntary military and civil service and approved a text regarding the war in Gaza. At the opening session on Monday, September 22, the Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Nikola Eterović, was present together with Auxiliary Bishop Krzysztof Zadarko, diocesan administrator of Koszalin-Kołobrzeg, delegate of the Polish Bishops’ Conference for immigration, and president of the episcopal council for migration, tourism, and pilgrimage.
Fiducia supplicans: Ambiguities and Unanswered Questions
As is often the case, when journalists entered the room, the spotlight fell mainly on the most divisive and controversial issues. Attention focused on Fiducia Supplicans, on the document adopted by the German Bishops’ Conference, “Segen gibt der Liebe Kraft – Blessings for Couples Who Love Each Other. A Guide for Pastoral Workers”, and on the remarks Pope Leo XIV entrusted to Elise Ann Allen in his book-interview.
In July, the Pope had observed: “In Northern Europe, ritual texts are already being published for blessing ‘people who love each other.’ But this contradicts Fiducia Supplicans, which states: people can be blessed, but no particular forms must be ritualized, because they do not correspond to the Church’s teaching. This does not mean that those people are bad: it is important to welcome and respect those who make different life choices. I know the topic is controversial and that there will be demands such as the recognition of same-sex marriage or transgender identities, but the Church’s teaching remains unchanged. Individuals will always be welcomed.” Those words immediately appeared as a blow aimed at the German Bishops’ Conference, which for years has made these social and civil issues its primary battlefield. German bishops are well aware that, unless they embrace certain demands, sooner or later they will be forced to pay the price: in Germany, clergy are supported directly by Catholic taxpayers’ contributions—contributions that are steadily and relentlessly declining. The DBK document, published in April 2025, reads: “The Church takes seriously the desire of couples to live under God’s blessing and encourages this hope. The community is invited to participate with prayers, songs, and acclamations.”A statement in direct contrast with Fiducia Supplicans, which reaffirms the traditional doctrine of marriage, explicitly excluding any liturgical rite or blessing that could be mistaken for a ritual, so as to avoid confusion with the sacrament. The Vatican document instead opens the door to simple, non-ritual blessings for same-sex or irregular couples, provided they are not officialized. These blessings must be seen as supplications, not as legitimizations of status. They cannot be celebrated alongside civil rites, nor accompanied by words or gestures proper to marriage. They must remain spontaneous and simple.
The intention is clear: avoid confusion with sacramental marriage while still not refusing a sign of closeness to those seeking God’s help. But this is not the road chosen by the German Bishops’ Conference, which promotes a more open, communal, and ritual-like approach—exactly what Fiducia Supplicans warns against. At the September 25 press conference, Bätzing stated: “In Italy my words were reported in a simplified way, as if in contradiction with the Pope. That is not the case: the Pope confirmed Fiducia Supplicans. We take a moderate approach, without rites or formulas, leaving freedom to pastors.” Yet it remains obvious that the Vatican excludes anything resembling a nuptial blessing.
One-Sided Disobedience
Bätzing raised another troubling question: “Why accuse us of disobedience and not those who completely reject Fiducia Supplicans?” Both extremes are flawed: the rejection by some African bishops, for instance, is rooted in cultural prejudice and thus unacceptable. Obedience should be equal for all, but Rome itself has hinted that the document might apply in some countries and not in others. The risk is a fragmented Church, marching in disorder. The deeper problem, however, is that no one actually needed this document.
Not homosexuals, who find little meaning in a blessing offered by a Church that seems to say: “Yes, I bless you—but in secret, so long as no one knows, otherwise it would cause scandal. Just a few seconds, quick, quick.” A blatantly hypocritical attitude that feeds the already sick system in many sacristies, where everything is tolerated—provided it stays hidden. The result? The old, toxic message that anyone “homosexual” must remain silent and believe themselves wrong.
Nor did pastors need this text. For ordinary people, the real blessing of God is experienced when they are genuinely welcomed, when they encounter a priest who becomes a friend, who accompanies them in faith and spiritual direction—without obsessing over sexual identities. That very relationship is already a blessing.
And neither did the self-styled defenders of “tradition” need it—those who scream scandal while filling their pseudo-blogs with vulgar, obsessive rants about sex and homosexuality. Often, these are the same people who parade as champions of “traditional values” while digging into the private lives of Vatican workers and even claiming homosexuals have no right to employment. Positions more at home in Islamist dictatorships than in the Catholic Church. Sheer madness.
Worse still, behind these crusades lurk lives of contradiction: men living with male partners while brandishing “tradition”; married men with children sustaining secret double lives; or, most sordidly, certain sixty-year-old men making indecent advances to young clerics, leaving them torn between disgust and the urge to kick them out of the sacristy. So the real question is another: why adopt Fiducia Supplicans without first engaging in a broad and shared consultation? Rome has the duty to keep the Church united, North and South, not to divide it with documents that inevitably become instruments in the hands of ideological groups. In Italy there are even bishops who have approved groups that went so far as to found communities whose only shared “charism” seems to be that of parading their same sexual orientation, both inside and outside the community. At that point, we are no longer facing merely an ecclesial problem, but something that swings between blasphemy and ridicule.
These are often individuals marked by negative seminary experiences, who attempt to wear religious garb without any legitimate right to it, convinced that the habit itself bestows an authority and identity which, in truth, should be built elsewhere. In this context, Fiducia Supplicans reveals itself not as a tool of discernment, but as a pretext: a means to distract the Church from what truly matters, to fuel divisions, and to focus attention on trivialities—trivialities that media and politics inevitably exploit as leverage against the Mystical Body of Christ.
Did Fernández Approve the German Document?
Finally comes the issue of transparency. Bätzing repeatedly insisted during the press conference that the document had been discussed with the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Yet from the dicastery itself, a different version emerges: there were no formal approvals or exchanges. When pressed by journalists, DBK spokesman Matthias Kopp curtly replied: “We do not account for documents or phone calls between the Curia and the bishops.” But this is hardly about gossip: clergy and faithful have the right to know whether the Dicastery really approved the text. Is it not paradoxical that the German Church—which has turned transparency into the flagship of its synodal path—now hides behind confidentiality? The issue is crucial: the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith must act in line with the will of the reigning Pope, not of a deceased one. There is also a bitter irony: Pope Leo XIV still resides physically in the very building of the former Holy Office, awaiting the papal apartment. Here, then, ambiguity and half-words are useless. What is needed is one thing only: clarity and transparency. When it comes to consistency—abandon all hope.
p.W.R. & F.B.
Silere non possum