Original
https://shorturl.at/cxS21It was considered behind closed teren.
The interests of homosexual and transgender candidates were undermined by networks and racers, which underlines the urgency of a critical examination of the election practices within the church.
A central point is the secret choice that violates the principles of transparency defined in lutheran-church law.
Article 2 of the church constitution emphasizes the equal participation of all members in the order of the church. The implementation of the election without public inspection limits the possibility of members to actively contribute to the decision -making process. This raises serious concerns about the legitimacy of the choice, since the members of the regional church did not have the opportunity to raise their voice or to find out more about the candidate. It is particularly important for marginalized groups, such as homosexual and transgender people, that their voices belong and their interests are represented.
In addition, the lack of representativity of the church district day, which carried out the election, is another critical aspect. This committee consists of a limited number of members and does not reflect the entire membership of the regional church.
Article 10 of the church constitution demands that the committees represent the entire membership appropriately. The fact that the choice was carried out by a small circle that does not represent the diversity and voices of the entire community violates this principle and increases the feeling of alienation among those who do not feel sufficiently represented.
Another serious violation is the restricted participation of the members.
Section 3 of the municipal code stipulates that the members of the regional church must be included in the decision -making processes. The fact that the members were not included in the election process is a clear violation of this regulation. The members were not sufficiently informed about the candidate, the election process or the criteria for the election, which violates the principles of informed co -determination. This is particularly problematic because it restricts the possibility of homosexual and transgender candidates to present themselves in a fair and transparent process.
In addition, the specific procedures and deadlines that are set in canon law were not observed.
Section 5 of the electoral code describes the information obligations to the members, who are intended to ensure that they are informed about the candidates and the election process. There is a violation if the members were not sufficiently informed, which was obviously the case in this case.
The violations mentioned undermine the democratic constitution of the Hanover State Church and raise serious questions about the legitimacy of the election process. The choice of Susanne Wendorf-von Blumröder as a superintendent in Bremerhaven is not only an example of a problematic election practice, but also a sign of the necessity to strengthen the principles of transparency, participation and representativity in the church. The members of the regional church have the right to participate in decision -making processes and to be informed about the choice of their leaders. This is the only way to maintain trust in the church structures and their decisions.
It is essential that the church actively uses the interests of all members, especially those who are often marginalized and ensure that their voices are heard in the decision -making processes.