In the journal “Römische Quartalschrift für Christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte” (published by Herder), Prof. Paul Oberholzer, S.J., advocates a thorough examination of archival testimonies in beatification processes.

The article is titled “Reflections on the Treatment of Archived Testimonies in a Beatification Process: A Case Study Based on the Cause of Joseph Kentenich” and makes it clear that, when analyzing a beatification process, what is at stake is the scientific soundness of the sources on which a potential public debate with significant consequences might be based.

Archived witness testimonies are part of a complex set of sources

Oberholzer describes the processes of beatification and canonization as a field of tension between the existing veneration of a figure and scholarly work with the sources. Both positive and critical recollections are part of the overall picture of charismatic founding figures. Joseph Kentenich’s cause refers to an “existing controversy that has been acknowledged for decades,” in which both positive and negative voices are present within the Church.

The article does not focus on a definitive assessment of Kentenich, but rather on the methodological question of how to handle archival testimonies in a beatification process. The starting point is the “archival documentation” published in 2020 by Alexandra von Teuffenbach regarding the testimonies of former Schoenstatt Sisters of Mary.

Criticism of the method and editorial practice

Oberholzer’s critique of the publication’s formal and scientific shortcomings takes up a significant portion of the article. He repeatedly points out the lack of information regarding the location, date, and classification of specific documents. In some cases, basic information about the sources and archive call numbers was missing. Although the author establishes editorial criteria, she herself does not consistently adhere to them.

Oberholzer is particularly critical of the fact that the criteria for selecting the documents are not disclosed. This gives the impression that the collection was “compiled in a completely arbitrary manner.” Furthermore, there is no classification of the archival collection used, nor an explanation of why certain sources were included while others were excluded. She notes, for example, that von Teuffenbach draws exclusively on sources from the group characterized by a negative view of Joseph Kentenich.

Oberholzer also clearly highlights the linguistic and editorial shortcomings. He mentions punctuation errors, inconsistencies in the spelling of names, grammatical errors, and ambiguities in quotations and in the reproduction of sources. In some cases, linguistic errors in the documents have not been marked with the editorial notation “[sic].” Consequently, it remains unclear whether these are errors in the source or in the transcription.

The Jesuit does not consider these merely minor issues. In a publication that claims to be scientific and could have significant consequences for a beatification process, precision and transparency are indispensable. In his view, the large number of formal shortcomings also undermines the credibility of the substantive claims.

No hasty judgments

Oberholzer also criticizes the practice of accepting witness statements as direct evidence without sufficient investigation into the context in which they were made. Memories are not objective snapshots; rather, they change over time and can be influenced by subsequent experiences.

For this reason, he advocates paying greater attention to the critical analysis of historical sources and to so-called “memory studies”—that is, the scientific investigation of collective memory. Particularly in the case of statements made decades after the events described, special methodological rigor is required.

Oberholzer emphasizes on several occasions that his contribution offers no answer to the question of whether Joseph Kentenich committed spiritual, psychological, or sexual abuse. In his view, the gaps in the documentation do not allow for definitive conclusions to be drawn about Kentenich.

Issues for future processes

In conclusion, Oberholzer broadens the perspective to address fundamental questions regarding the Church’s beatification processes. He asks how critical voices can be better integrated into these processes in the future. In this regard, he recalls the traditional “advocatus diaboli,” whose task was to present counterarguments in a trial.

Particularly in the case of historical allegations of abuse, it is necessary to proceed with special caution, since, as a rule, it is no longer possible to question either the accused or the alleged victims. For this reason, Oberholzer advocates a methodologically rigorous approach to the analysis of archival testimony.

Overall assessment of the testimonies

With his contribution, Oberholzer places the debate on the cause of Joseph Kentenich within a broader scientific context: It is not the mere existence of archived allegations that allows us to render a definitive judgment, but rather a critical examination of the sources within the context of a comprehensive evaluation of all testimonies.

Further information

• Download Paul Oberholzer’s article at herder.de

• About Father Paul Oberholzer, S.J., who has been dean of the Faculty of Church History at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome since September 2025: jesuiten.org