As the rumours go, another strange chapter in the story of Bishop Tebartz-van Elst?

franz-peter tebartz-van elstRecently there has been some confusion about Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst. The erstwhile bishop of Limburg is rumoured to have been working in Rome since December, keeping the house in Regensburg where he has been living since leaving Limburg. More accurately, Bishop Tebartz-van Elst, who was forced to resign from Limburg because of financial mismanagementm is said to be working as a secretary of the Pontifical Council for the New Evangelisation.

The way rumours go, this story has been alternating between confirmation and denial of the above. Initially, the Frankfurter Algemeine newspaper quoted Pope Francis, who seemingly said that he wasn’t considering any Curial appointment for the German bishop. The Passauer Neue Presse later reported that “usually well-informed Vatican sources” had stated that Bishop Tebartz-van Elst had recently participated in a three-day meeting of the New Evangelisation Council, in which he spoke about catechesis. This was later also confirmed to German Catholic news outlet Kath.net.

These latest rumours do fit with the narrative as we know it: when Bishop Tebartz-van Elst’s resignation was confirmed by the Holy See, the official announcement already spoke of future appointments. But there are also some questions.

Usually, new appointments are announced via the Holy See press office, especially when it is an appointment to a Curial dicastery. And although the appointment is said to have been made on 5 December, no such announcement has yet been made.

A new appointment for Bishop Tebartz-van Elst should be no reason for indignation. Instead of doing nothing in his home in Regensburg, he is once again tasked to be of service to the Church. This is no promotion, but a direct consequence of his being a bishop. As such, he will likely also have been given a titular see, as is standard for bishops in the Curia. But nothing is known about that either.

We known nothing for certain, but we can’t deny the possibility of some truth behind the rumours. And if there is a grain of truth, it would constitute another strange chapter in the story of Bishop Tebartz-van Elst.

EDIT 8/2: The latest word, which has an increasing undertone of certainty, is that Bishop Tebartz-van Elst will not be a secretary of the Pontifical Council for the New Evangelisation (which already has two of those), but a delegate or member with a special focus on catechesis. Such functions are not usually announced in the daily bulletins of the Holy See press office, which would explain the lack of any official word.

Cardinal Lehmann’s reluctant look back at the Limburg affair

lehmannIn an interview for the Frankfurter Algemeine, Karl Cardinal Lehmann, the bishop of Mainz and the most senior of Germany’s active bishops, talks about various topics – the Second Vatican Council, Helmut Kohl, ecumenism, his upcoming retirement (expected for May of 2016), but standing out is his reluctant assessment of the Limburg affair, the financial mismanagement which led to the forced retirement of Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst.

“I don’t much like addressing the topic of Limburg any longer. But we should consider what we can learn from it. The impact of Limburg is always very close. I’ll give you an example. It’s about the construction of a house for the church community in Worms. The word “Limburg” is thrown about immediately, or signs with the texts “Limburg is everywhere” appear. The whole situation escalated in Limburg since they waited far too long with giving an explanation.”

It turns out that Cardinal Lehmann and the other bishops offered their help to Bishop Tebartz-van Elst, but that he did not take it.

“From the start I told Bishop Tebartz, “It’s not easy for you. You have a charismatic predecessor, Franz Kamphaus, and people don’t get used to a successor very quickly. We will help you where we can. Come and ask.” But he hasn’t asked us anything.”

“As president of the Bishops’ Conference, Archbishop Zollitsch had asked Bishop Tebartz twice in the standing council – that is the meeting of the bishops without the auxiliary bishops – if he could tell us something about the allegations which had been raised in Limburg. Bishop Tebartz twice had 20 or 25 minutes to explain the situation. And there, I am sorry to say, he avoided all the difficult questions. When the request was then made to publish an official statement for him, some of us said, “I can’t do that, since I don’t really know what’s going on in Limburg.” Had Bishop Tebartz been more collegial and open, he would have gotten more support from us. I’m sorry.”

It is clear that serious mistakes and errors of judgement lie at the root of the mess in Limburg, but it is sad to see that hands extended in help were ignored. The removal of Bishop Tebartz-van Elst was the only possible choice in such a situation, I’d think.