Stetter-Karp on Synodal Committee: I don't expect soft debates

The Synodal Committee emerged from the Synodal Path, is to continue it and prepare the establishment of a Synodal Council in which bishops and laypeople want to hold their discussions on reforms in the Church from 2026. Despite the failure of funding via the Association of German Dioceses (VDD) and much criticism, particularly from the Vatican, the constituent meeting of the committee will take place next Friday and Saturday (10 and 11 November) in Essen. As with the Synodal Path, the German Bishops' Conference (DBK) and the Central Committee of German Catholics (ZdK), both of which theoretically send 27 delegates, will be responsible for organising the meeting, in addition to 20 others elected by the Synodal Path's plenary assembly. In this interview, ZdK President Irme Stetter-Karp explains what can be expected from the committee, what the situation is regarding the questions that have not yet been resolved - and what influence the results of the World Synod may have on the work.

Question: Mrs Stetter-Karp, how many bishops do you expect to attend the first meeting of the Synodal Committee? The four who voted against funding via the VDD will probably not be there - Bishop Oster definitely won't be.

Stetter-Karp: First of all, I expect everyone to attend, at least those who did not vote against joint funding. If there are fewer, I would want to look at the reasons of those who are not coming. But how many there really are is a question that the Bishops' Conference will have to answer. I can only say that all 27 ZdK delegates have confirmed their attendance.

Question: There are or were some other question marks in the run-up to the event, such as the financing. Can you say anything about the current state of affairs?

Stetter-Karp: Please also put this question to the DBK. We assume that we know the current status, but the Bishops' Conference is responsible. It also made it clear to us early on that it sees itself as responsible.

Question: What are your basic expectations of the work of the Synodal Committee?

Stetter-Karp: As the ZdK, we expect the consistent continuation of the synodal path with its five synodal assemblies. The resolutions passed there are now the basis for the work with the approval of a two-thirds majority of the bishops. I expect that we will pick up speed together. The period from March until now has been rather critical from the point of view of the laity. We would have liked to see more speed and decisiveness in the implementation of individual action texts, but also in the question of how the working groups are organised. All I can say about the position of the ZdK is that we will not let up - on the one hand in our responsibility for the people and on the other for the Church. In this respect, I am counting on the Synodal Committee to make decisions.

Question: If we now take a look ahead: What specifically will the first meeting be about?

Stetter-Karp: The Synodal Committee will first discuss the statutes and rules of procedure of the body. This includes several relevant questions. These discussions and decisions will certainly take centre stage at the constituent meeting. And then we have to make sure that we build up the agenda for the work step by step. For now, it's about the framework for how we should work.

Question: There were certainly conflicts about the statutes of the Synodal Path. Do you expect the same now?

Stetter-Karp: There are questions that will not be easy to resolve. I would name two initial points: There will have to be a decision as to whether the committee will meet in public or not - and if so, how exactly. We in the ZdK - like the DBK - also see a difference between the synodal assemblies of the past three years and this Synodal Committee, which is a body in a transitional phase. But among the ZdK delegates we agree that we want to continue the positive experience of the public meeting. In our view, the media coverage was productive, which is why we will also discuss the issue of publicity within the statutes.

Question: For practical reasons alone, wouldn't it have been better to decide this before the first meeting?

Stetter-Karp: We also asked ourselves this question in the Executive Committee. But in the end, the decision was made that we - Bishop Bätzing and I as the two presidents - did not want to pre-empt the committee here, even though we have made our respective positions clear. For this reason, there will definitely be press releases at the beginning and end of the first meeting and the results will be communicated to the outside world.

Question: You mentioned two potentially critical issues. What is the other one?

Stetter-Karp: That is the question of what majorities the Synodal Committee needs in order to pass a resolution effectively. I had already made my position on this question public after the fifth synodal assembly. The position of the ZdK Presidium as a whole is that we no longer want a special quorum of a two-thirds majority of the bishops. What we can certainly imagine is that a two-thirds majority of all is needed in order not to make the decisions too "easy". That would be a viable option for us - and we will also fight for it.

Question: The bishops insisted on a blocking minority of one third for the synodal path. I could therefore imagine that it would not go down so well with them if you wanted to "take it away" from them...

Stetter-Karp: That may be the case. But we have made joint decisions that we have derived from the experiences of the MHG study. It is about the systemic causes of abuse, and this also includes the issue of power and the separation of powers. The Synodal Committee is also intended to be a transitional body. It is not concerned with dogmatic decisions, but essentially with the question of working methods.

Question: We have now talked about possible difficulties with the statutes. Do you also expect conflicts in terms of content in the course of the deliberations in the Synodal Committee? The biggest critics or sceptics were either not elected among the 20 other delegates or have already dropped out in advance on the episcopal side.

Stetter-Karp: I don't know whether you can really say that there are no more sceptical thinkers on board among the bishops. Scepticism is not bad per se, but a prerequisite for making real progress in terms of content. As far as our 27 ZdK delegates are concerned, this will be a determined group within the committee. And the 20 other delegates were elected by the Synodal Assembly - with a clear view of who might be suitable for the work on the committee. That's why I don't expect the debates to be softer, but rather assume that we will - I've already used the word "wrestle" a few times - actually negotiate individual issues properly.

Question: What general lessons have you learnt from the meetings in Frankfurt for the deliberations of the Synodal Committee?

Stetter-Karp: I believe that the very basic seating arrangement, i.e. by alphabet and not by office, was a good precondition for entering into dialogue with one another. The second is the mixture of non-public work in the forums and the public working methods of the Synodal Assembly. Looking back, I see this as a good decision that was made at the time. That is one reason why we as the ZdK say that we want to work publicly in the Synodal Committee in plenary sessions. There will certainly also be commissions that prepare - in my view, there is no need for publicity.

Question: The Synodal Committee begins just two weeks after the end of the first part of the Synod on Synodality. Its methodology in particular - keyword round tables - was praised by many participants and described by some as more "synodal" than the Synodal Way because there was more opportunity for genuine dialogue. Do you want the Synodal Committee to be inspired by this?

Stetter-Karp: As far as the ample time is concerned, certainly not, because it is simply not our mode. I can't imagine that we would organise the planning in such a way that, to put it bluntly, we would just listen for a week - and then another week. We have already left no doubt in Frankfurt that we will work in a dialogue-oriented manner. We utilised every opportunity to ensure that all delegates were able to participate. In this respect, I don't see that we urgently need to learn anything from the World Synod in terms of working methods. But of course we like the fact that there were round tables in the synod hall in the Vatican. This is a completely different setting from the past, when the synod members sat in a "lecture theatre".

Question: The consultations in Rome ended with some proposals that sound quite good to German ears. Will these results have an impact on upcoming decisions in the Synodal Committee?

Stetter-Karp: The Synod on Synodality is such a major event for the Roman Catholic Church that we, as part of this world church, naturally looked and listened to it. I can definitely see that the idea that the issues we are discussing are special issues of the divisive Germans is off the table. I believe that the question of diversity in the Catholic Church and what room for manoeuvre the local churches should have in a common corridor has become visible because it has been backed up with examples from all continents.

Question: There are still the fundamental questions: the criticism from Rome of the Synodal Council, which is to emerge from the Synodal Committee, has not been silenced. Is the Synodal Committee conceivable as a "permanent state", at least for the time being?

Stetter-Karp: That is not conceivable for the ZdK. Our idea is that the Synodal Committee is only a transitional body. After that, a Synodal Council is needed. The term is perhaps debatable. We are not dogmatically concerned with the word Synodal Council. But it is about finding a permanent form in which bishops and laity, i.e. the ministry and people of God together, not only consult but also decide. That is the core of the brand that we are looking for in the stabilisation. Personally, I think "Synodal Council" would be a worthy name for it.

Question: Would the way be open for those bishops who are currently refusing to participate to jump on board at some point?

Stetter-Karp: At any time. That is the right that all local bishops have. It strengthens us on the path that still lies ahead of us if they are all involved.