The decision by the German bishops to appoint a priest previously linked to a major seminary scandal to an advisory body representing abuse victims has sparked controversy in Germany and drawn criticism from victims’ groups as well as from some senior Church figures.
In December 2024 the German Bishops’ Conference appointed Fr Wolfgang Rothe, a priest of the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, to its advisory board for victims of sexual abuse. The board was established to give survivors a voice in shaping the Church’s response to abuse and to advise the bishops on safeguarding and pastoral support.
Yet the appointment quickly proved contentious because of Fr Rothe’s own history, which has been the subject of court proceedings and intense media scrutiny for more than two decades.
The controversy resurfaced after a detailed report published by the German magazine Cicero examined Fr Rothe’s background and the internal reaction to his nomination. According to the report, the appointment had already caused unease among some bishops before it was formally announced.
Among those said to have objected was Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer of Regensburg, who reportedly described the nomination as “unacceptable”. The report also indicated that Cardinal Reinhard Marx raised concerns during discussions about the appointment in late 2024. Nevertheless, the decision was approved under the leadership of Bishop Georg Bätzing.
The objections relate principally to events that occurred during Rothe’s time as deputy rector of the diocesan seminary in St Pölten, Austria, in the early 2000s. The seminary became the centre of a major scandal in 2004 after reports emerged that child pornography had been found on computers and that photographs existed showing homosexual activity involving seminarians and staff.
Fr Rothe and the seminary’s rector at the time stepped down as the affair dominated headlines in Austria. The crisis ultimately led to the intervention of the Vatican and the closure of the seminary following an apostolic visitation led by Bishop Klaus Küng.
Bishop Küng said at the time that the institution had lost sight of its purpose, warning that it was producing men who were “utterly unfit” for priestly ministry. He referred to the Church’s teaching that men with what the Vatican describes as “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” should not be admitted to the seminary or ordained.
Fr Rothe has consistently denied wrongdoing. However, legal proceedings brought by the priest in response to media reporting have repeatedly failed in court.
In 2004 the Austrian magazine Profil reported that Rothe had maintained sexual relationships with seminarians while serving as sub-regens, or vice-rector, at the St Pölten seminary. Rothe challenged the allegations in court, suing the magazine’s publisher for defamation.
The Vienna Regional Court dismissed the case in September 2005 after examining witness testimony and other evidence. According to the court’s findings, it had been established that Fr Rothe had maintained a homosexual relationship with a seminarian which was openly practised at the seminary. The judges ruled that the magazine’s reporting had therefore been justified.
Rothe appealed against the ruling but was unsuccessful. In June 2006 the Vienna Higher Regional Court upheld the earlier decision. The priest then sought to challenge the outcome at the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that the publications should be halted. That attempt also failed and the reporting remains accessible online.
This history has led critics to argue that his appointment to a body representing abuse victims is inappropriate. Some have gone further, claiming that the priest himself should be regarded as a perpetrator rather than a victim.
The Catholic reform initiative Neuer Anfang publicly condemned the appointment earlier this year. Bernhard Meuser, a co-founder of the group, and theologian Gabriel Weiten, both of whom say they suffered spiritual and sexual abuse as teenagers, described the decision as “a punch in the gut”.
Weiten said that learning of the appointment revived memories he believed had long been overcome. “As if by magic, the nightmares returned,” he said. Meuser said that he and other members of the initiative initially assumed the nomination must have been an error.
“We thought: there must be a mistake,” he said. The group said it contacted the bishops’ conference privately in December 2024 to raise concerns about Rothe’s appointment but received no meaningful response.
“We ran into a wall,” Meuser and Weiten said in a joint statement. “There was stonewalling, downplaying, and silence at all levels of the German Bishops’ Conference.”
In a letter addressed to all German bishops, the two men argued that allowing someone with such a controversial history to serve on a victims’ advisory body undermines the Church’s credibility. They described the decision as “a fatal error of judgement” and “a slap in the face to genuine victims”.
The initiative has also questioned the responsibility of Bishop Bätzing, who signed off on the appointment. The group said that the bishops’ conference had repeatedly promised transparency in dealing with abuse cases but that the handling of Rothe’s nomination appeared inconsistent with those commitments.
The criticism has also been fuelled by Fr Rothe’s more recent public activism. In 2021 he was among the clergy involved in a nationwide initiative in which priests and pastoral workers held public ceremonies blessing same-sex couples. More than one hundred such events were organised across Germany in May of that year.
Fr Rothe has also pursued legal action in Germany over criticism related to the issue of homosexuality within the Church. In 2021 he filed a complaint against the Polish priest Fr Dariusz Oko after Fr Oko had published an article addressing what he described as networks of homosexual abuse within ecclesiastical structures.
Rothe has also claimed that he was the victim of sexual abuse during the St Pölten affair, alleging misconduct by Bishop Küng, who had been appointed by the Vatican to investigate the seminary. Both Church and state authorities examined the allegation, but no definitive conclusion was reached and the matter was eventually dropped because of the statute of limitations.
