Medical measures are based on the three steps "medical history - diagnosis - therapy". The more precisely a patient can describe their symptoms and their occurrence, the better the cause can be determined. With just two questions, you not only come closer to a diagnosis, but also to a therapy: "What do you have? - What is wrong with you?" It is characteristic of these questions that they use "too much" and "too little" to capture both the symptoms of the illness and how to overcome them: What is missing can be supplemented. What is present in excess must be reduced. It makes sense to utilise this possibility for the diagnosis and treatment of the church crisis. However, it should be borne in mind at an early stage that therapies in medicine have different objectives. In the most favourable case, they enable a complete cure. In the least favourable case, they are merely palliative. In this case, the underlying condition can no longer be cured. But the suffering from the suffering can be reduced.
The "time" factor is crucial in any therapy. This is because it is important for the patient to regain time to live, or at least to gain quality of life from the remaining time. The success of a therapy is also determined by the time at which it is initiated. Many a patient could be saved if action was taken in good time. Here, too, an analogy with the church crisis comes to mind: How much time is left to solve the problems that jeopardise its future viability? Is there enough time to make up for its backwardness in relation to modern culture? Or is the church already showing signs of cultural and religious decline? Are palliative options still an option?
Many patients who can no longer be saved have often been denied the truth about their condition. Instead, they have been given hope of new therapeutic approaches, of a miracle, of a last-minute rescue? What is the current state of the 'church' patient? Can it still be saved? Is the Holy Spirit providing a miracle for the Church? Is there a change of course in the Vatican that still gives the green light for comprehensive reforms? Or are all proposals for the comprehensive self-correction of a religious institution already too late?
Mortality and vitality of the church
If you look at the statistics on people leaving the church and the demographic development of church membership, you have to be sceptical. The church is running out of life-sustaining forces; it can hardly generate any self-healing effects. For the first time in Germany's post-war history, less than half of the population will be paying members of a Christian church in 2022. Projected to the year 2060, it will still be a quarter. But even this will require favourable circumstances. The annual exit rate would have to be permanently below 1 %. In 2022, it was 2.5 %. It is obviously only a matter of time before the church has reached the zero point of social significance and religious relevance. It may even reach a "dead" point before then.
This metaphor, used to diagnose the times, is as succinct as it is sobering. It signals lifelessness and helplessness. Its use did not first emerge in the current church crisis, but stems from a diagnosis of the times made by the Jesuit Alfred Delp in the 1940s: "Despite all our correctness and orthodoxy, we are at a dead centre. The Christian idea is not one of the leading and formative ideas of this century. Plundered man still lies in the way. ... Through our existence we have taken away people's trust in us. ... And especially in recent times, people who have become tired have only found tired people in the church. Who then committed the dishonesty of disguising his tiredness behind pious words and gestures" (Aufzeichnungen aus dem Gefängnis, ed. by Roman Bleistein, Freiburg 2019, 318ff.). For Delp, it was not adaptation to the zeitgeist or a lack of orthodoxy that led to the crisis. Rather, it was moral and dogmatic rigorism that had emaciated Christianity.
These are precisely the points of reference that critics of church reform believe could secure the church's existence and identity as well as its status and relevance. However, the orientation towards dogma and morality becomes a threat to the existence and identity of the church if this orientation leads to a crisis of trust and credibility. This is precisely the case since the revelation of pandemic sexual abuse and its cover-up by clerics. The dishonesty and insincerity to which Delp alluded consists today in the denial of systemic causes, which also include a dogmatic exaggeration of the priesthood and a humanistically obsolete sexual morality. These causes are concealed by the same means that bring about the consequences mentioned: pious words and gestures. Episcopal shock at sexual and spiritual abuse is flattened into a pose; the presentation of diocesan abuse reports becomes a worn-out media penitential ritual - and the sexually plundered person has to fight hard for compensation in court.
However, the talk of a dead body also tempts people to prematurely issue the church with a death certificate. Even if she is found to be in respiratory and cardiac arrest, resuscitation measures are initially indicated. But they must be carried out promptly. They also require the massive use of technology and medical expertise. Above all, it must be quick. This is because such interventions only make sense if vital signs are still recognisable. Only then is there a chance of survival and perhaps also a favourable long-term prognosis. Presumably, the church will also have to undergo a lengthy rehabilitation programme.
In the following, we will explore whether there is a chance of socio-cultural survival for the church if it resorts to the therapeutic option of "catch-up modernisation". This means that it overcomes unproductive asynchronicities with the epoch and social formation in which it wants to make the gospel perceptible, audible and acceptable. The thesis put forward for discussion is that if the church does not "modernise" itself, it will find no place in the modern age. In other words: If real life, with its opportunities and challenges, does not return to the church, the church cannot return to life!
Modernity - Modernity - Modernisation
In order to clarify what is behind the demand that the church must finally arrive in the modern age, it is first necessary to clarify what is actually meant by the terms "modernity" and "modernity" and what challenges they outline for the church. These key terms are often used as containers. They contain various elements that can be found in philosophical, ideological, cultural-historical and social-theoretical studies on the characteristics of the period after 1800. In this context, "modernity" functions as an epochal term. "Modernity", on the other hand, stands for the epoch-specific signature of social structures, interactions, behavioural orientations and mentalities. A typical
Modern consciousness is characterised by the fact that it
- replaces cultural uniformity with a call for plurality,
- The new society will drive out the remnants of a corporative society, along with any spirit of subservience, and call for free citizens who are responsible to their conscience,
- freedom with tolerance,
- expects the participation and discourse of all those affected in public affairs instead of authoritarian decrees.
The "modernity" of social conditions, structures and institutions is measured by the extent to which they are willing and able to undergo permanent change for the better as required by reason. This implies an awareness of the contingency of the present and the past as well as an orientation towards the future as the hoped-for better. However, this better is not merely the object of human hope, but also the result of his will and actions. A process is to be set in motion that insists on the social realisation of fundamental and human rights and also measures the legitimacy and authority of state actors against this. Changing society for the better also means developing the various spheres of society (e.g. the economy, law, science) in accordance with their own logic and rationality, while maximising the efficiency of the functional processes taking place within them.
Against this background, Jürgen Habermas has formulated criteria that can also be used to assess the modernity compatibility of religious communities. Firstly, it is necessary to develop a reflective awareness within the religion, whereby they "renounce the violent enforcement of their religious truths and the militant compulsion of conscience against their own members ... out of their own insight" (Glauben und Wissen. Speech on the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade 2001, Frankfurt 2001, 14f.). According to Habermas, a religious consciousness is compatible with modernity,
- "that gains a reasonable relationship to competing religions that have become reflexive in their turn,
- which allows the institutionalised sciences to decide on mundane knowledge and
- which connects the premises of human rights morality to its own truths of faith" (Nachmetaphysisches Denken II, Berlin 2012, 254).
The criteria of compatibility with modernity are obviously imposed on the Church from outside. With reference to the lack of a compatibility test with its theological self-understanding, many reforms since the Second Vatican Council have been approached only hesitantly and implemented with the reservation of reversal. But this is only half the truth. The other half shows a considerable learning curve in the endeavour to inculturate Christianity in a social environment characterised by permanent change.
The Council itself has written a dialogue-based definition of its relationship to the world into the Church's master book. There are numerous impulses for the process of resistant engagement with the socio-cultural signature of modernity and for a critical and constructive response within the Church to changes in its social environment. The Church should perceive "what is good in today's social dynamics" and look with respect "at all that is true, good and just that humanity has created and continues to create in the various institutions" (GS 42). This also includes the consideration of whether secular modernity produces values and norms of its own accord, to the recognition of which there is ultimately no alternative within the Church.
Against this background, the "modernity" of the church and its need for modernisation can be determined on the basis of a double question: Is it succeeding, in a contemporary way, in doing justice to the cause of the Gospel? Does it succeed in doing justice to the challenges of the time in a way that is appropriate to the Gospel?
But objections are immediately raised against the authoritative nature of modernity: haven't counterproductive side effects always been associated with every scientific and technological push towards modernisation? Has the attempt to make history with secular, autonomous reason not also produced the unreasonable and counter-reasonable? Doesn't the usefulness of economics, technology and politics depend on respecting what is economically incalculable, technically unfeasible and politically unavailable? Aren't there cultural traditions that should be preserved if we want to make progress? Critics of modernity point to numerous problem-generating solutions that are typical of modernity and which are grouped around the diagnosis of the "dialectic of enlightenment" (M. Horkheimer/Th. W. Adorno). Will not every institution that engages with such modernity inevitably share in its pathologies, crises and derailments? If the church begins to catch up with modernity within itself, is it not inevitable that it will repeat all the undesirable developments of modernity?
Above all, however, is the church really required to be contemporary with the secular world or is it not rather required to be critically non-simultaneous and self-confidently non-uniform? Is the Church really required to inculturate into the secular world, or is it not rather required to mark a difference between the sacred and the profane? After all, the appeal not to conform to the world (cf. Rom 12:2; Jas 4:4) touches on a fundamental theme of the entire history of Christianity. It is therefore highly appropriate to be deeply sceptical of a church that is geared towards conformity with society, i.e. based on opportunistic thinking.
The "Synodal Path" - a project for a catch-up modernisation of the church?
These doubts are currently centred primarily on the reform agenda of the "Synodal Path" (2020-2023), which has been divided into four synodal forums: (1) Power and separation of powers in the church - (2) Priestly existence today - (3) Women in the ministries and offices of the church - (4) Living in successful relationships. This project was originally started in order to reflect on the consequences of the MHG study on sexual abuse of minors by clergy. It soon became apparent that the reappraisal of this abuse could not stop at the question of systemic causes and that supposedly dogmatically established positions on the rank and status of priests, on the sacral and economic aggregation of power on the part of bishops, on gender anthropology and church sexual morality should also be renegotiated.
A total of 15 texts were adopted. In addition to a preamble and a theological foundation for the reform process, a basic text was adopted for each of the synodal forums on power and the separation of powers, priestly existence and women in the ministries and offices of the church, as well as so-called "action texts" from each forum. The basic text of Synodal Forum 4 Sexuality and Partnership failed to receive the necessary episcopal approval in September 2022. The action texts contain a number of votes that relate to practices that were previously in the grey area of what is not permitted under church law - e.g. blessing ceremonies for couples that fall outside the scope of the church's teaching on marriage. Others reaffirm concerns that have been raised in the Vatican for decades - e.g. the "lay sermon", the diaconate for women and the abolition of compulsory celibacy.
To what extent can we say that these votes are pushing for a catch-up modernisation of the church? Do they pass the test of modernity compatibility with the criteria formulated by J. Habermas? A brief evaluation of some synodal texts will be attempted on the basis of a few random samples.
The first sample is aimed at the basic text of Forum I Power and Separation of Powers in the Church. Right at the beginning, the ability to connect to the legal culture of a democratic society is addressed and it is emphasised that church law must be aligned with fundamental and human rights and that possible abuse of power can be prevented through transparency, accountability and effective control of power. It also looks for existing affinities within the church to the principles of democracy and the separation of powers: "A change in the church's order of power is necessary due to the church's own history of the synodal principle, due to democratic decision-making processes in religious orders and church associations and for reasons of successful inculturation into a democratically characterised liberal society based on the rule of law". It is true that the text can be attested that it endeavours to connect the truths of faith to the premises of human rights morality and in this respect fulfils a first criterion of modernity. However, as great as the learning curve is that the basic text documents, the number of concrete implementation measures is small. The action text Strengthening synodality sustainably provides for the establishment of a "Synodal Committee" or "Synodal Council" as an advisory and decision-making body with regard to fundamental decisions of supradiocesan importance on pastoral planning, future issues and budgetary matters of the church. The action text Consult and decide together is content with an appeal to the voluntary commitment of the bishop or pastor to the decisions of advisory bodies that are accessible to all church members. The "binding doctrine of faith and legal order of the church" is given as the framework for this voluntary commitment.
I take a second sample from Forum III Women in Ministries and Offices in the Church. Here, too, the basic text of the same name endeavours to prove itself compatible with modern human rights morality in terms of its premises and core position. There is no doubt that the principle of gender justice also has a theological basis (cf. Gal 3:28). All the baptised and confirmed should experience the recognition and appreciation of their charisms and their spiritual calling that is owed to all equally. This must not be made dependent on their gender identity. According to their aptitude, abilities and competences, they should be allowed to work in ministries and offices that serve the proclamation of the Gospel in our time.
The third sample relates to Forum IV Life in successful relationships. If one follows the compatibility criterion that the competence and autonomy of science in secular matters are to be respected by the Church, then the Church is faced with a re-evaluation of human sexuality, including the phenomenon of homosexuality. This reassessment results from a differentiated human and scientific consideration of the interplay of genetic and epigenetic processes as well as the role of psychosocial factors in the development of a sexual orientation. A religious consciousness cannot claim its own competence and authority in the identification of these factors. If it embarks on a normative evaluation of human sexuality, a religious consciousness must be based on sufficiently verified factual judgements. If new scientific findings lead to a changed factual judgement, this can have an impact on an ethical value judgement. The persuasiveness and validity of the value judgement depends on the accuracy of the factual statement reflected in it. This nexus applies to every concept of ethics that recognises empirical and normative references in the formation of judgements, and is not a special problem of church sexual ethics. The text on dealing with gender diversity explicitly grants secular science the competence to make factual judgements when it comments on a person's biological gender identity: "A person's biological gender identity is initially based on the chromosomal code of XX or XY. However, it can by no means be reduced to this. Instead, biological gender identity develops in complicated interactions between genetic and epigenetic factors ... Sex hormones such as testosterone or oestradistol occur in all genders, although they occur in different concentrations in typically male or female bodies."
In this context, the church's sexual ethics face a double challenge. The action text adopts a statement by the German Ethics Council on intersexuality: "In contrast to genetic sex, hormonal sex is not typologically binary (i.e. strictly male or female), but is characterised on a sliding scale in which the individual status can also lie between the two poles." On the one hand, this raises the question of whether and to what extent the church can still adhere to a "binary" image of humanity with the logic of "either man or woman" and should instead follow a polar image of humanity. On the other hand, a fundamental theological challenge becomes clear here. Is the Church prepared to accept a relationship between faith and reason that assigns reason a filter function? If nothing can be considered as an object of faith that contradicts valid knowledge of reason, then it can no longer be claimed in a theological anthropology of gender that human beings are biologically human either as men or as women. The extent of this challenge is shown by the bishops' rejection of the basic text on a renewed sexual ethic. Many critics equated the abandonment of a "binary" view of humanity with the abandonment of biblical anthropology.
Reforms that change nothing?
Do the reform proposals of the Synodal Way have the potential to stop the church crisis? Are they attempts to establish a productive simultaneity with modernity that come too late? Are the initiatives to democratise and control power within the church already in vain because their implementation is blocked by Roman authorities? Are the intended reforms ineffective when it comes to stemming the loss of trust in church officials and the social decline of a religious institution?
Firstly, the impact and yield of the Synodal Path should be measured against the problems that led to its establishment. If this includes raising awareness of the relevant problem areas in the church, the results are less meagre than one might fear. Awareness of the precarious sacred-spiritual, administrative and financial aggregation of power in the church has grown. It has enabled the abuse of this power and the exaltation of the holders of this power. The willingness to establish comprehensive measures to prevent sexual and spiritual abuse has grown. The protest against the disregard for women and non-binary people, against the anti-life and anti-human constrictions of the church's sexual morality has grown. The willingness to take institutional and structural action against discrimination in the church and to correct its labour laws accordingly has increased.
Initially, these "confidence-building measures" are only expected to have positive effects within the church. Presumably, some forces to remain will be strengthened and existing tendencies to leave will be mitigated. On the other hand, an understanding of "synodality" that eradicates all characteristics of a representative democracy will tend to strengthen centrifugal forces. If the envisaged reforms actually take place, they will hardly strengthen motives to return. Anyone who has left the church but wants to remain a Christian will find denomination-specific aspects of being a Christian less and less relevant. The attempts to modernise the diaconate of women in the field of gender equality are unlikely to make much of an impression.
The best that can be achieved with such innovations is to move away from an unproductive asynchronicity with liberal modernity. Perhaps the continuation of a philanthropic church sexual morality is also a first step towards preventing the stigma of an institution, in which double standards reign, from also becoming a social stigma for the individual belonging to it. The individual would no longer be expected to share responsibility for the systemic failure of an institution and its leadership elite. In any case, in view of the overlapping church crises and scandals, remaining in the church, but not leaving, has long since become socially justifiable.
Religious distancing
The latest results from the Bertelsmann Foundation's Religion Monitor 2023 suggest that a distinction should be made between the reason and the cause for massive church exits. The tendency to leave increases with the loss of trust in the willingness of religious institutions to reform, which are constantly being accused of abuses, scandals and their concealment. Parallel to this process of distancing oneself from the church is a process of distancing oneself from religion. The proportion of the population that has not experienced any religious socialisation biographically and whose own "assessment of religiosity" is becoming ever lower is growing. It can be shown that as institutionalised religious practice declines, the assessment that any religious practice is dispensable, dispensable, irrelevant grows.
If the church wants to counter the process of distancing itself from religion, it needs more and different things than the reform concepts of the synodal path. They are necessary, but not sufficient. They alone cannot prevent the church from reaching the zero point on the scale of relevance for modern people. It must devote itself increasingly to those expectations of competence that have to do with the first and last questions of human existence. A reformed church that is "compatible with modernity" in terms of its structures and beliefs will only find resonance and recognition if it also demonstrates its pastoral core competence in dealing with a problem of reference that is resistant to secularisation in interpreting human existence and shaping life. In this context, forms of religious open-mindedness should be addressed that at first glance are not directed towards God, but appear to be subject- and self-centred. People are just as concerned with themselves and their identity as they are with existentially significant differences: What distinguishes my factual self from my true self? How do I find out what my true self ultimately is? Will it make a difference whether I have existed - or not?
These questions are both compatible with modernity and resistant to secularisation to the extent that they are repeatedly triggered by modernisation processes, but are not sufficiently answered by them. Linked to this is an existential problem of reference for the formation of a religious consciousness. It can be identified as a problem of acceptance, which is expressed in a double question: Is it possible to say "yes" to a life in which there are many things that are completely unacceptable? - Is it possible to say "no" to a life in which there is something that is unacceptable without ifs and buts? How to accept life in the face of the categorically unacceptable poses an existential acceptance problem for everyone. Whether the church can give good reasons for accepting oneself and one's existence and contribute to a corresponding practice of life may also determine its relevance and acceptance.
