New fractures are appearing in the Catholic Church in Germany following a political clash over immigration ahead of a snap federal election.
The divisions were first exposed by a controversial Jan. 29 vote in the Bundestag, the German federal parliament.
Following the collapse of Germany’s ruling coalition in November, Friedrich Merz, the leader of Germany’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), reportedly agreed not to introduce any bills before the Feb. 23 federal election if they would rely on the support of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, widely described as far-right.
Critics accused Merz of breaching the agreement — known in Germany as the “Brandmauer,” or firewall, against the far-right — when the conservative Union parties (CDU/CSU) presented a motion to restrict migration before the Bundestag.
Immigration has become a major political battleground since Germany welcomed around a million Syrian refugees in 2015. The debate has been supercharged in recent months by mass-casualty attacks perpetrated by immigrants in Magdeburg, Aschaffenburg, and Munich.
The non-binding five-point motion passed narrowly thanks to AfD support, provoking uproar.
The vote was followed by another, on Jan. 31, on a bill to restrict immigration called the Influx Limitation Act. This time, the Bundestag rejected the bill by 349 votes against, 338 in favor, and five abstentions.
In the wake of the votes, sharp differences emerged at several levels of the German Catholic Church.
Divisions among the bishops
On the eve of the first vote, the German federal parliament, the Catholic Office in Berlin, which lobbies on behalf of the German bishops’ conference, and the Protestant Germany in Germany (EKD) issued a joint appeal to lawmakers.
Catholic Office head Msgr. Karl Jüsten and EKD representative Anne Gidion expressed fears that German democracy would “suffer massive damage” if the Union parties cooperated with the AfD.
But on the day of the vote, the German bishops’ conference unexpectedly distanced itself from the joint intervention in an email to diocesan bishops.
Two bishops (Regensburg’s Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer and Eichstätt’s Bishop Gregor Maria Hanke) then publicly criticized the joint statement, while one (Speyer’s Bishop Karl-Heinz Wiesemann) defended it.
Back in February 2024, the bishops had unanimously approved a statement condemning what they called “racial (völkisch) nationalism,” which accused the AfD of being “dominated by a racial-nationalist attitude.”
But the Bundestag vote highlighted implicit differences among the bishops over whether Germany’s immigration laws should be tightened and whether the Church should intervene forcefully in an election season on what might be seen as matters of prudential judgment.
Divisions within the ZdK
Following the Jan. 29 vote, the influential lay group the Central Committee of German Catholics (ZdK) issued a press release accusing the Union parties of crossing “the boundaries of political culture.”
“The CDU/CSU wants a hard limit on immigration, but fails to provide humane criteria,” said ZdK president Irme Stetter-Karp.
The criticism of the CDU/CSU provoked a backlash within the ZdK, which has traditionally had strong ties to the Union parties.
Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, a prominent figure in Germany’s CDU party, informed Stetter-Karp Jan. 31 that she was resigning from the ZdK in response to its intervention.
The loss was significant because Kramp-Karrenbauer led the CDU from 2018 to 2021 and was once touted as a successor to Germany’s long-serving Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Other CDU figures expressed misgivings about the ZdK’s stance, suggesting a growing gulf between the party and the influential lay organization that co-sponsored Germany’s contentious “synodal way” alongside the bishops.
Divisions within Catholic organizations
On the day that Kramp-Karrenbauer resigned from the ZdK, the president of the Catholic German Women’s Association (KDFB), a group with around 180,000 members, was on the defensive following the vote.
Anja Karliczek, both KDFB president and a CDU politician, issued a statement justifying her votes in favor of the motion.
“Even if the motion for a resolution was passed with votes from the AfD, this is not a collaboration with this racist and right-wing extremist party that wants to destroy our democracy,” she said.
“My vote for the motion in no way means proximity to the AfD or tolerance of their political views.”
KDFB vice-president Monika Arzberger criticized Karliczek’s stance, saying that “the political actions of the CDU/CSU faction, to which our president belongs, have caused incomprehension and sadness in the last week.”
The KDFB was not the only Catholic women’s group feeling the aftershocks of the vote. The Catholic Women’s Community of Germany (KFD), which has around 265,000 members, did too.
The Münster diocesan association of the KFD called for the resignation of the KFD’s federal chairwoman Mechthild Heil, another CDU politician who voted in favor of the motion.
“Mechthild Heil is no longer acceptable to us as KFD national chairperson,” the diocesan association said. “Her voting practice shows no recognizable commitment to the values of KFD. We expect her to draw the appropriate consequences.”
Heil had defended her vote in a Feb. 7 KFD press release.
She said: “Through my direct mandate, I am a CDU member of the Bundestag and represent the concerns of my voters. In my opinion, there needs to be a change in migration policy: Our country must continue to be able to help people fleeing war and displacement in the future, and give those who already live here and are welcome a fair and humane chance. This underlines the values of the KFD.”
The vote also pitted Germany’s Catholic youth organizations against one another.
The Working Group of Catholic Student Associations (AGV), which describes itself as Germany’s largest association of Catholic students, clashed with the Bund der Deutschen Katholischen Jugend (BDKJ), an umbrella body for Catholic youth organizations.
In a Jan. 28 open letter, the AGV criticized an Instagram post by the BDKJ that was apparently directed at the Union parties.
The post said: “‘If you can only realize your plans with the help of enemies of democracy and humanity, then perhaps your plans are simply anti-democratic and anti-human.”
The AGV accused the BDKJ of effectively issuing “an election recommendation against a party that is undisputedly part of the democratic center.”
It said: “The BDKJ’s statement implies that the Union parties’ migration policy is fundamentally ‘anti-democratic and anti-human.’ Such a generalization is not acceptable in a democratic debate and is alarmingly simplistic, even for a youth association.”
What’s next
The divisions highlighted by the Jan. 29 vote could potentially widen following the federal election.
