Talk:Robert Zollitsch

Untitled

Who ever wrote and posted the article from LifeSiteNews should become more familiar with Satisfaction Views of Atonment. The Catholic Church allows for more than one view of Atonement (Ransom View (Christus Victor) or Satisfaction View). As a parishoner of Dr Zollitsch, his views are completely inline with great Saints and Theologians of the Church (e.g. Thomas Aquinas, Anselm of Canterbury, Gregory of Nyssa). -S Pytlik (24-April-2009)

I removed the following paragraph from the text:
He has expressed his belief that priestly celibacy should be voluntary rather than law and that it is not "theologically necessary", ref: Deutsche Welle. Catholic Church Chief Stirs Controversy With Celibacy Comments 19 February 2008, end ref, as well as supporting children's day-care nurseries as opposed to stay-at-home mothers, and the establishment of legal guidelines for same-sex marriages by the German Church, citation needed.
The reasons. 1) I know of no source, and neither is one given, that Archbishop Zollitsch says celibacy should be voluntary, in the sense of: not necessary for priesthood. What he did say and what the sources tell us is: that this obligation is no dogma. That isn't the sensation which has been made of it. German media are wont to make sensations of such self-evidences. He said that "it would be a revolution", which seems correct. He did with no word indicate whether or not he wanted such a revolution.
2) The support of day care is completely ununderstandable for anyone who does not know the context in which this statement was given. And "as opposed to" is an insinuation and as such unsourced and, to all I know, wrong as well. - The context is the following. Bishop Walter Mixa of Augsburg had taken his stand against an industrialisation of entire life, reducing even the necessarity of children to the necessarity of old age insurance payers (my words), and that thus "reduces women to bearing machines", citation ending. The citation is important. That gave quite a big "hello!" since he did dare the suggestion that not everything is right in the status quo, and, worse, neither in the status ad quem of those who believe politics is the solution (and I'd love to say "leftists" to them, but regrettably that's not only what is known as the left in Germany). The attacks on His Excellence Mixa focussed on the wrong accusation he had called women bearing machines, and when that fiction could no longer be hold, on the equally wrong accusation he had used too polemical language, although he didn't intend to speak polemically and nothing is polemical without intention. It is from this context and from this context only that one can understand (whether with approval or not) Abp Zollitsch's basic statement on the matter, which is: "Words like 'bearing machines' do not belong to my vocabulary." Allow me personally to think that His Excellence Zollitsch thus indicates he feels an obligation to avoid clear language. But whatever we may think of that, it is clear that Abp Zollitsch as well as Bp Mixa agree on the subject, that both (Bp Mixa as well) allow for day care, as necessarity and perhaps possibility of good, und run (ran) them through their dioceses, but that both (there is no reason to exclude Abp Zollitsch here) do acknowledge responsible stay-at-home mothers to the highest.
3) The thing Abp Zollitsch said about same-sex civil unions is that he accepts their regulation by the state as "registered partnerships" (eingetragene Partnerschaften, which is the official term), though by no means as "Homo-Ehen" (the colloquial word, Ehe being marriage, speaks for itself). That may be a controversial statement in itself, but it does nowhere even state that he absolutely favors such institutions, let alone legal guidelines by the German Church. --77.4.46.189 (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Extremely unbalanced page

Page seems to be written to give a favorable image of Robert Zollitsch. Wuerzele (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)