Bonn – There is something profoundly distorted in the way a part of Western Catholicism today lives its relationship with the universal Church. The interview given by Irme Stetter-Karp, president of the Zentralkomitee der deutschen Katholiken (ZdK), to the Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger is a striking example. Not so much for the content—already well-worn: structural reforms, women in ministries, revision of celibacy—but for the tone, the stance, the attitude.
Stetter-Karp, sarcastically described in Germany and Austria as a (grantige alte Jungfer) “bitter old spinster,” makes no secret of her desire to measure the work of the new Pope, Leo XIV, against the expectations of the German Synodal Path. “If he supports our demands, fine. If not, we will judge and condemn him as we did with Francis.” That is the message, hardly concealed.
But here a crucial question arises: who judges whom in the Church? Is it really the role of the faithful to evaluate a Pope as one would assess a government or a local administrator? This attitude of “putting to the test”—whether Leo XIV or anyone else—reveals an ancient and recurring flaw: the same mentality that drives the most obstinate traditionalists as well as the most radical reformists. Apparently opposed, they converge on the same logic: “the Pope is good if he does what I say.”
This is no longer obedience or ecclesial dialogue, but blackmail. In Stetter-Karp’s narrative, Francis becomes almost an inept because he did not sufficiently endorse Germany’s extravagant demands. Cardinal Woelki of Cologne should be removed not for proven guilt, but for non-alignment. The same logic applies to other German bishops: guilty only of not embracing resolutions passed by a small group of repressed and disappointed delegates.
This creates a short circuit that reveals two things. First: in Germany, what is at stake is less ecclesial than political, with interests linked to the enormous wealth the Church receives through the Kirchensteuer (church tax). Second: the Church is being imagined as a national democratic body, where an elite dictates the line and Rome is reduced to a mere bystander. A vision that denies catholicity itself, reducing universality to a footnote.
The point is not to dismiss the discomfort of those who call for reform, nor to ignore the wounds of faithful who feel distant from a hierarchy perceived as remote. But raising questions is one thing; attempting to oversee the Pope and the bishops is another. The Church is not a parliament, and pastors are not functionaries to be confirmed or dismissed according to popularity polls. Yet the tone of the interview betrays precisely this logic: those who do not comply are publicly shamed. Stetter-Karp takes satisfaction in denouncing “absent” or “obstructionist” bishops, as though compiling a blacklist. Her outrage at the “scandal” of pastors exercising freedom shows just how little ecclesial this approach is.
In the end, the real question is not about Stetter-Karp, or Woelki, or Bätzing. It is about us: are we willing to accept that the Church does not belong to us, but precedes us? Or will we continue to treat it as a container into which we pour our ideological battles—left or right, conservative or progressive?
If the criterion remains “I like it / I don’t like it”, then the Pope will always be deemed inadequate, the bishops perpetually deficient, and the Church reduced to a pale imitation of politics. This burden, however, Leo XIV will not allow to crush him. On one point, paradoxically, Stetter-Karp is right: “the Pope should not aim to please everyone.” But the truth is even more radical: in these months Leo XIV has shown he does not intend to please anyone, except Jesus Christ, the only one before whom he must give account of the burden he carries—a task he did not seek, but accepted with full awareness.
f.T.C.
Silere non possum

The President of the Central Committee of German Catholics (ZdK), Irme Stetter-Karp, believes the time for decisions has come – both on the question of Church reforms and on the future of Cologne’s Cardinal, Rainer Maria Woelki.
Ms. Stetter-Karp, Pope Leo XIV has been leading the Church for just over 100 days. If he were a politician, the question would be: has he delivered?
Overall, it’s still too early to say. But I find it very positive that the Pope has spoken clearly in favor of synodality in the Church, thereby also sending an important signal regarding the Synodal Path in Germany.
Really? The term “synodality” was already slippery with its own “inventor,” Pope Francis. And what you in Germany mean by “Synodal Path” often met with his skepticism. Why should it be different with his successor?
Indeed, we will have to be patient to find out. But patience does not mean passivity. What I find very discouraging at the moment is the attitude of some German bishops. During the Synodal Path, we approved by a large majority decisions that could have been implemented long ago. So far, the ZdK has refrained from criticism, thinking: “If two quarrel in Germany, the third in Rome profits.” But now, with the sixth and final Synodal Assembly at the end of January approaching, the cards must be placed on the table.
Whom do you mean when you speak of the “third in Rome”?
Those who have constantly tried to obstruct the Synodal Path.
What concrete decisions have not yet been implemented – and by whom?
Take, for example, the new resource for the blessing of same-sex couples. Despite a clear decision by the bishops in the Synodal Path, it is being applied in only about half of the 27 dioceses. The others either reject it or endlessly delay, always looking to Rome.
Isn’t there a danger that it is the bishops themselves—by refusing to listen to their faithful—who create division?
We do have an absolutist, hierarchical system, that’s true. And we cannot ignore the element of clerical obedience. But did not the universal Synod state clearly that clericalism must be overcome? Isn’t the ability to listen to the faithful also part of what defines a bishop? The insistence on reform is so unanimous that the bishops cannot simply dismiss it. Who are they supposed to shepherd, if not the millions of Catholics waiting for change? We, as the ZdK, are often accused of endangering unity and causing a split. But then who is really dividing? Might it not be that some bishops are at risk of splitting their flock precisely because they refuse to listen?
Which bishops are you referring to concretely?
It is well known that Cologne’s Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki and three Bavarian bishops refuse to participate in the Synodal Path. But there are others who, lately, have stood out for repeated absences from meetings. And this is a scandal—not only for the President of the Bishops’ Conference, Georg Bätzing, and for me as co-chair of the Synodal Path, but also for all committed lay people.
Again: who exactly?
I will not name names. But those concerned know we are fully aware of it. And the diocesan lay councils will easily recognize which bishops, at long-scheduled meetings, have repeatedly found “more important things to do.” These few bishops, let me be clear, are damaging the entire Bishops’ Conference, whose ability and willingness to act together in solidarity is already in doubt.
Do you see any distancing from the President of the Bishops’ Conference, Georg Bätzing, whose re-election is scheduled for 2026?
I don’t want to speculate. I see him as a very committed, reliable, and forward-looking President of the German Bishops’ Conference, especially within the Synodal Path. He deserves solidarity.
Let’s return to Pope Leo XIV. Do you believe he will support the reform demands of the Synodal Path?
Before his election, in every conversation, he consistently appeared more open, more willing to listen, and more interested than those responsible before him. We will have to see the details, of course, but overall I am confident that support will come from Rome for the stabilization of synodal structures—in line with the decisions of the 2024 World Synod, which Leo XIV has clearly made his own.
And what about concrete steps such as opening offices to women or easing mandatory celibacy?
I consider both absolutely urgent. It’s evident that Leo XIV sees himself as a mediator between conservatives and reformers. To some extent that is necessary and wise. However, the moment will come when he must set a clear direction. And we can only hope he does not try to satisfy everyone, because he won’t succeed. The time for fundamental decisions will come.
Next week you will debate at “frank & frei” with Münster theologian Michael Seewald, who recently described the Synodal Path as a “theology untrained in history.” Are the core texts of the reform process perhaps poorly grounded?
I am curious to hear how Professor Seewald will argue in dialogue. His criticism surprised me. Perhaps, on his part, it is also a matter of expectations that are too high toward reformers, who are doing everything they can to set the Church in motion again.
As in the days of Pope Francis, so now the calls are multiplying for the Pope to intervene in the leadership of the Archdiocese of Cologne. The lay council of the Bishops’ Conference and others have asked for Cardinal Rainer Woelki’s removal, arguing that trust in him has been lost. Polls confirm this judgment. From Berlin, how does the ZdK President view the matter?
Until now, we have refrained from making statements. Today I can say this: I would welcome it if Pope Leo XIV were to take an active decision. I think the time has come.