To Do-List for Our Bishops

A Small Agenda for Change

So if we were able to establish that the worldview of the time plays an important part in the biblical texts, which in turn found its way into the „truths revealed and handed down to us“ in many places, then we also have the freedom and the duty to remove these constructs from the traditions of faith so that the core statements become relevant again.

• Give people back their dignity by making it clear that human beings are fundamentally good and not „sinful creatures“, however defined, who need to be cured from the outset. It is also clear that when man grows up, he sins by acting against his conscience. Only then does a person become „ripe“ for repentance and the gospel.
• Hopefully we can all agree that God is not gender-bound. So when God „spoke“ and created our universe with his creative word, then this entire universe bears his divine Logos signature, which is gender-neutral because this signature is found in all of creation and therefore also in all genders. If this Logos signature is then fully revealed in a male human being, no claim to sole representation of the masculinity of the Logos can be derived from this. And since the Logos signature is also in women, they should also be able to become priestesses.
  Give women the same rights as men. Treat women equally. When Paul condemns women to silence in the assembly in 1 Corinthians, he is bowing to the social order that was common at the time – a construct of the time. If the Catholic Church makes a start here, it will be a sign and good news for the whole world and for all other religions and for all women who are still oppressed and often mistreated. That would be a truly cheering message.
• You can continue to sift through the entire church doctrine and ask what is the core message and what is a construct. It will make the catechism clearer.
  In the first centuries of our era, Neoplatonism with its well-developed logic dominated the thinking of philosophers – including theologians. What could be more obvious than to penetrate faith with this logic in order to be able to say what is right and what is wrong. Statements were also made about God, although even then it must have been clear that it was impossible to form a picture of God. The Old Testament already stated that we should not form an image of God. We have no access to God, God is holy, holy, holy – in Hebrew: kadosh – different, different different! And yet the monotheistic God has been defined as triune. How would it be if we had simply said that we cannot know? Here we were on the way from an experiential religion to a theological doctrine. We may talk about the Trinity, but each person has their own idea – their own individual construct of God. So what use is this definition to us in our daily practical lives? These definitions create an internal awareness of belonging to a community that believes the same thing, but at the same time it is a demarcation to the outside world. If someone does not believe this, they do not belong to us. Such a person is excluded.
  It would be much nicer if, instead of such „exclusion criteria“, „inclusion criteria“ were formed! Jesus defined such criteria, which require a change of life. He never asked us to believe anything. Rather, he demanded that we do what he said.
  Even the Pope criticizes the dogmatic narrow-mindedness of the Church, and thus that of the bishops.¹
  You can believe in God and hold on to your believe. Or you can trust God and courageously set off with him into the unknown.
• Similarly, the Church’s jurisdiction in its current form can be questioned. This is because it is based on the law and administration of the Roman Empire.

So you have a lot to do. Talk to your colleagues about these issues and summon up all your courage by standing up for what you have recognized.

1. ^*https://katholisch.de/artikel/53802-papst-franziskus-kritisiert-dogmatische-engstirnigkeit-der-kirche ↩︎