Georg Bätzing corrects the Ten Commandments…
Top German Novus Ordo Bishop says Sodomy, Adultery not sinful, wants Catechism changed
(dpa picture alliance / Alamy Stock Photo)
Batzing is the immediate successor to “Bp.” Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst, the theologically conservative “bishop of bling”, who now works right under Francis’ nose in Vatican City for the so-called Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization.
What makes Batzing an object of interest for the secular press these days, however, is another office he currently holds: He is the president of the German Bishops’ Conference, which makes him the nation’s chief Novus Ordo bishop. He succeeded “Cardinal” Reinhard Marx in that role in March of 2020.
If having no Catholic bone in one’s body is a job requirement for being the top “Catholic bishop” in the Land of Luther, Dr. Batzing is the perfect man for the job. The interview he gave to Bunte makes that absolutely clear.
Whereas Tebartz-van Elst may have been attached to worldly goods and guilty of wasting money, his theology wasn’t nearly as abysmal as that of “Bishop” Batzing. For copyright reasons, we cannot reproduce the interview here in full, but we can summarize, paraphrase, and quote at least a little bit.
The first half of the conversation is fairly innocuous, and the hot-button issues don’t appear until well into the second half. The interviewer, Manfred Otzelberger, teases Bätzing about that oh-so outdaded Catholic morality no one follows anyway, inasmuch as it permits sexual relations only within wedlock. For a secular reporter in our day, that would be a standard objection and “par for the course”, so to speak. Alas, it is Bätzing’s response that is the true scandal.
Before we look at the Novus Ordo bishop’s reply, however, let us first consider what answer a real Catholic bishop would have given. In essence, he would have made clear that the Church preaches not the opinions of men but proclaims and insists upon the teaching of Jesus Christ, her Lord and Master, who is “yesterday, and today; and the same for ever” (Heb 13:8). He, not the world, is her standard, and His doctrine is perennially valid and therefore cannot vary from age to age, nor does it allow for compromise with people’s sinful inclinations. On the contrary, the teaching of Christ is greatly challenging, touching not only outward actions but also inward thoughts and desires: “But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mt 5:28). Like the Apostle St. James, the Church reminds us that we are called to “keep [ourselves] unspotted from this world” (Jas 1:27); and so like her Divine Founder, she mercifully calls sinners to repentance: “…sin no more, lest some worse thing happen to thee” (Jn 5:14).
That is not how Batzing responds, of course. Steeped in the Neo-Modernism of the “New Theology”, this chief German pseudo-Catholic and erstwhile seminary rector answers the objection that Catholic morality is not in keeping with the times and no one practices it anyway, with the words: “That is true. And we have to change the Catechism on these points to an extent. Sexuality is a gift of God. And not a sin” (our translation).
This is absolutely brilliant theology, isn’t it? Sexuality is a gift of God and not sinful in itself? Who knew? “And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth” (Gen 1:27-28).
Now, Batzing is being disingenuous, of course, when he insinuates that the Catechism — he is referring, of course, to the 1992 Novus Ordo Catechism of the Catholic Church, but he ultimately means the traditional Catholic doctrine that forbids sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments — considers sexuality something depraved and sinful. He knows that’s absolute balderdash.
Rather, the Church, following her Divine Savior, insists so much on the goodness, dignity, and nobility of sexuality that she will allow the deliberate use of the generative faculties only for those who have made a life-long vow before God in Holy Matrimony, which, for the baptized, has been raised by Christ to the level of a sacrament that confers sanctifying grace. That is also the reason why she strictly forbids even the slightest abuse of this sublime gift through sins of lust, especially adultery, bigamy, sodomy, onanism, pornography, and other perversions.
It is because sexuality is a precious gift of God that man is only permitted to use it within the limits established by the Almighty for its proper use. Just as we are not morally permitted to gorge ourselves on food to the point of vomitting it so we can enjoy the pleasure of eating again, so neither are we permitted to engage in the gratification of the sexual appetite as it might suit us. We must follow the law established by God, which comes to us through reason (natural law) and Faith (divine-positive law, esp. the Ten Commandments).
Batzing knows this, of course, but he was more interested in pleasing depraved men rather than God (cf. Gal 1:10), so he decided to subtly spread the utterly destructive lie that the Catholic Church believes sex itself to be sinful, an accusation so incredibly false and stupid that not even the secular interviewer himself made it! In fact, addressing Batzing, the journalist somewhat naively called traditional Catholic morals “your morality”, assuming it to be also the position of his interlocutor. Well, at least the “bishop” set him straight on that and made clear that he too rejects Catholic moral doctrine!
The scandal of Batzing’s answer cannot be overestimated. By responding the way he did, this false shepherd outrageously reduced all sexual activity to the same level and equated the virtuous with the vicious, the rightly-ordered kind with the sinful abuse, the licit and life-giving exercise of one’s matrimonial rights with the frivolous and recreational abuse of the reproductive organs. Thus Batzing confirmed this wicked world in its errors and countless souls in their impurity! Seeing souls on the road to hell, he pats them on the back, wishing them well. What a sickening thing to do!
But the “Catholic bishop” of Limburg is just getting started.
The next question the interviewer asks is whether it is “okay”, meaning “not morally objectionable”, if men love other men and women love other women. (Here we wonder if the journalist is perhaps a conservative, since he still admits the existence of only two sexes, which in our day is quite remarkable.) Now of course Batzing could have quoted St. Paul, who refers to the erotic “love” between members of the same sex as “shameful affections” (Rom 1:26), but instead, the Limburg prlate offers the following utterly dreadful reply: “Yes, that is okay, if it happens in fidelity and responsibility. This does not impact one’s relationship with God.” He then adds: “Jens Spahn, for example, is a good Catholic.”
Who is Jens Spahn? He is a German politician who was Minister of Health under Chancelor Angela Merkel from 2018-2021. He is notorious for being a public sodomite who not only lives with his partner but is officially “married” to him under German civil law. That’s where that “fidelity and responsibility” must come in! Imagine if Spahn had more than one partner, perhaps even spent time with men to whom he was not even romantically attached! Now that, clearly, would be perverted and would “impact [his] relationship with God” in a rather negative way — Batzing guarantess it!
Likewise, we can only be glad Spahn doesn’t attend the Traditional Latin Mass or adhere to some “outdated” moral code, for then Batzing would surely not be promoting him as a “good Catholic” now; in fact, it is quite possible he would even declare his relationship with God to be resting on shaky ground. One is reminded of the words of the prophet Isaias: “Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” (Is 5:20).
Batzing goes on to note that the “personal intimacy” of his employees “is none of my business”. Now that is interesting because it shows he is not a real Catholic shepherd who cares about the souls of his flock but, at best, is but a hireling “whose own the sheep are not”, for he “seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep: and the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep” (Jn 10:12-13). And while even the best of shepherds ultimately cannot control what people do in private, he can control whether he employs those who, inasmuch as their private sins are publicly manifested, give grave scandal and besmirch the good reputation of the Catholic name by their public lives of habitual mortal sin. That is why, for example, the Catholic Church renders infamous those who, having civilly divorced, attempt another so-called “marriage”, and urges interdict or excommunication should they spurn the admonition of their local bishop (see Canon 2356). Not surprisingly, that law was eliminated from the Novus Ordo Code of Canon Law published in 1983.
Perhaps Batzing’s carefree “none of my business” attitude regarding the spiritual state of his putative flock also has something to do with the fact that his cousin, who is a state politician and therefore has a certain public profile, is herself in an illicit pseudo-marital union, though at least of the heterosexual kind. Aware of this situation, the interviewer asks: “Your cousin … got a divorce in 2009 and married again — is she living in sin, as the Church teaches officially?” Batzing’s answer could not be worse and must be quoted in full:
I do not have that impression. She has a great new family. Failure is always a possibility. And then a new beginning must be possible. We should support people in that and not make them feel guilty, as in ages past. I have to apologize for that in the name of the Church. I am certain that God does not begrudge people a fresh start.
(Georg Bätzing, in Manfred Otzelberger, “Jeder Priester sollte heiraten dürfen”, Bunte [Mar. 3, 2022], p. 46; our translation.)
This response reveals the utter heretical depravity of this “Catholic bishop”. He is fully aware of the Catholic teaching on the matter and stubbornly rejects it. What makes this so much worse, however, is that this loss of Faith is not only something that impacts Batzing’s own soul, it also greatly encourages the eternal ruin of those under his sway.
It would have been bad enough if Batzing had simply said that it is not sinful for his sister to live in permanent adultery; but what he said is even worse, namely: “I do not have that impression. She has a great new family” — as if the moral character of a sexual union depended on one’s subjective assessment of how things are working out in the natural order!
That a new start “must be possible” is the opinion of Dr. Batzing, and it is an opinion that runs strictly contrary to the divinely-revealed doctrine of Jesus Christ, who told the Samaritan woman at the well: “…thou hast had five husbands: and he whom thou now hast, is not thy husband” (Jn 4:18). Did Christ make the adulterous Samaritan feel guilty? Indeed He did! And likewise the Jewish woman caught in adultery (see Jn 8:3-11); for although He mercifully forgave her sin, He did not pretend that she had no guilt from which to be freed.
Yes, God is merciful, but to receive His mercy we must first be repentant, and repentance presupposes guilt. Batzing’s cousin is not repentant, which is terrible; but what is infinitely worse is what the “bishop” himself claims, namely, that his adulterous cousin is not living in a state that requires repentance in the first place! Thus he encourages not merely the sin of adultery, of which people can repent, but the much more horrific sin of presumption, which by its nature considers repentance unnecessary.
To add insult to injury, the infernal Batzing has the audacity to apologize for the Catholic Church teaching the doctrine given to her by God! Wisely did St. Pius X write that “pride sits in Modernism as in its own house, finding sustenance everywhere in its doctrines and lurking in its every aspect”. He went on to elaborate:
It is pride which fills Modernists with that self-assurance by which they consider themselves and pose as the rule for all. It is pride which puffs them up with that vainglory which allows them to regard themselves as the sole possessors of knowledge, and makes them say, elated and inflated with presumption, “We are not as the rest of men,” and which, lest they should seem as other men, leads them to embrace and to devise novelties even of the most absurd kind. It is pride which rouses in them the spirit of disobedience and causes them to demand a compromise between authority and liberty. It is owing to their pride that they seek to be the reformers of others while they forget to reform themselves, and that they are found to be utterly wanting in respect for authority, even for the supreme authority. Truly there is no road which leads so directly and so quickly to Modernism as pride. When a Catholic layman or a priest forgets the precept of the Christian life which obliges us to renounce ourselves if we would follow Christ and neglects to tear pride from his heart, then it is he who most of all is a fully ripe subject for the errors of Modernism.
(Pope Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, n. 40; underlining added.)
Truly, Batzing has all the qualifications needed to be the chief Modernist of Germany: a hatred for truth, a contemptuous pride, no concern for the salvation of souls, and no Faith.
The infernal prelate finishes the interview by expressing his approval of women deacons as a “first step” for women’s ordination. Asked what woman he admires — other than the Virgin Mary, the journalist assumes — Batzing answers: “Angela Merkel.” You can’t make this stuff up!
By the way: Liturgically, it would seem that Batzing’s style matches his theology — at least judging from this picture, in which he carries a pastoral staff that can only be described as an oversized version of a dental pick. Sound familiar?
People like Georg Bätzing simply do not believe. They are not Catholics (cf. 2 Jn 1:9; Mk 16:16), they are Modernists. As such, they are “the enemies of the Church”, which one can easily recognize “if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action” (St. Pius X, Pascendi, n. 3).
Although it was “Pope” Benedict XVI who made Batzing a monsignor in 2005, it is Francis who made him a “bishop” in 2016 after the diocesan chapter selected him as their preferred choice. With “Catholics” like him, who needs Protestants?
According to the top “Catholic bishop” of Germany, it is possible to habitually engage in the foulest acts with a consenting adult of the same sex and still be a “good Catholic”. That would have been news to St. Paul (see Rom 1:23-32), but then he was part of that Church for which Batzing just apologized.
Likewise, the “bishop” of Limburg holds that it is permitted to violate one’s marriage vow — which was made “until death do us part”, incidentally — by pretending to dissolve the existing marriage bond before a secular judge and then pretending to establish a new one. This does not constitute living in sin, Dr. Batzing believes, at least not for as long as he agrees you’ve got a “great new family.” It is of no consequence to him that “the perverse decrees enacted by men have neither abolished the divine laws nor weakened them”, as Pope Pius XII told the Polish episcopate (Apostolic Letter Czestochoviensis Beatae Mariae; in Papal Teachings: Matrimony [Boston, MA: St. Paul Editions, 1963], n. 524).
Theologically, Batzing seems to be just another Peter Kohlgraf, one of those brilliant Novus Ordo theologians (and now “bishop” of Mainz) who believes that it is not the sinner who is in need of amendment but the definition of sin:
When it comes to the Modernist dream of “changing our view of sin”, however, it is remarkable that this is always insisted upon only for very specific sins, certainly always for those against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. Never, however, do these false shepherds care to extend their perverted notion of mercy to infractions against their own ideology.
We see this very clearly, for example, in Francis adulating people like Sr. Jeannine Gramick and “Fr.” James Martin, who promote sins that cry to heaven for vengeance, while on the other hand he moves ruthlessly against conservative religious communities such as the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate for reasons the Vatican has never made clear. Just today the “Dictator Pope” fired a Puerto Rican Novus Ordo bishop for apparently no other reason than deviating somewhat from Francis’ COVID ideology.
Speaking of Francis, on June 24, 2021, the false pope received Batzing in private audience:
The Vatican is currently in the initial phases of the process for its much-touted Synod on Synodality, scheduled to be held in Rome in October of 2023. It is one of the next big events through which Francis will try to introduce massive church “reforms” under cover of the “Spirit” speaking to the “People of God”. We already know what “Bp.” Bätzing wants: not only does he want women clergy and optional celibacy but also a change to the Catechism that gets rid of sexual sins.
He may get his wishes, at least to an extent. Francis, we know, is no stranger to changing his Catechism. Recall that in 2018, he made an official revision to say that the death penalty is “inadmissible” on account of human dignity — not the dignity of the victim, of course (cf. Gen 9:6), but of the perpetrator. Who knows, maybe Francis will discover some more of that dignity to justify additional revisions to the Catechism. Imagine the possibilities!
But even if not, there is no need to worry, for an official change to the Catechism isn’t necessary. Regardless of what happens at the synod, Francis will have to release a post-synodal “apostolic exhortation” — and there should be just enough room for one more footnote.
Image source: Alamy (dpa picture alliance)