Trans* in the Roman Catholic Church, its theology and denominational religious education: a change of perspective is needed

ABSTRACT

Trans* is an umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth. They may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, non-binary, or genderqueer. Nowadays, trans* seems to be well established in mainstream society. But how is Roman Catholic theology and the Church dealing with trans* people and the phenomenon itself? Often trans* people are not noticed, are deliberately excluded, or are simply ignored. This article attempts to consider the topic from a pastoral-theological perspective using the example of denominational religious education and shows why a change of perspective is needed.

KEYWORDS:

• Gender
• trans-sensitive
• Roman Catholic
• religious education

Introduction¹

In January 2024, #OutInChurch – for a Church without fear² celebrated its second anniversary. #OutInChurch is an initiative of more than 650 LGBTIQA+ people who work full-time or voluntarily in the Roman Catholic Church, primarily in Germany. It includes teachers of religious education and people who are involved in child and youth work. In January 2022, they went public with a collective coming out and manifesto. The accompanying and very moving ARD³ documentary ‘Wie Gott uns schuf’⁴ (How God created us) presents more than 100 participants who provide viewers with an insight into their lives as LGBTIQA+ people in the Church. Trans* people are also part of this initiative. They report on discriminatory experiences, exclusion, considerable suffering, existential fears and how they deal with the fact that they do not exist as trans* people in the Roman Catholic Church.

Trans* in the context of Roman Catholic theology and the Church

No path of dialogue – findings

For years, the individual dioceses in German-speaking countries – and presumably in many other regions of the world – have been faced with enquiries regarding the treatment of trans* persons, especially regarding marriageability, terms of employment, godparenthood, dealing with the topic in denominational religious education, and much more. Requests and reports of personal experience from the initiative #OutInChurch are only symptoms of a much deeper problem: often in Roman Catholic Church contexts, trans* people are not noticed, are deliberately excluded, or are simply ignored. The consequence is that the Church and its theology are not capable of word and action, either regarding the concerns of individuals or in a scientific context.

The magisterium of the Catholic Church does not heed this problematic situation. On the contrary and despite requests, it does not seem to identify any reason to deal with the topic of trans* primarily from the perspective of those who are affected. At most, rather, magisterial documents refer repeatedly to a few already known statements. The magisterium refuses to engage in interdisciplinary discourse and ignores current scientific findings.

A disconcerting example of the way in which the phenomena of trans* and trans* people are dealt with can be seen in a memo of the Archbishop of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Jerome Listecki, which was revealed at the end of September 2021.

In a document sent to the members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), the chairman of the USCCB’s canonical affairs committee reported that ‘a woman living under a transgendered identity had been unknowingly admitted to the seminary or to a house of formation of an institute of consecrated life’. As a result, some members of the committee ‘observed that a bishop could consider requiring a D.N.A. test or, at a minimum, certification from a medical expert of the bishop’s own choosing’, to ensure that those admitted to a seminary are ‘only men who possess the requisite physical and psychological qualities’ (Neumann 2021; Rousselle and Bukuras 2021).

The Congregation for Catholic Education’s 2019 document Male and female he created them: Towards a path of dialogue on the question of gender theory in education is another impressive demonstration of a lack of awareness of the problem that has relevance in the domain of religious education. For example, it talks about trans* people being able to ‘choose a gender’, which trans* people would consider a mockery. In addition, it falsely mixes up, generalises or equates terms. For example, trans* is associated with sexual orientation, which is fundamentally wrong (Congregation for Catholic Education (for educational institutions) 2019, no. 11 and 25). Therefore, it is not possible to speak of a ‘path of dialogue’ as stated in the subtitle – not least because of its self-referential character.

Gender studies as a challenge for theology and Church

The cause of this inadequate handling of the matter can be found within the Roman Catholic ‘gender critique’, which warns about a ‘gender ideology’. This critique creates the image of an enemy by means of inaccurate accusations and narratives that need to be resisted.

It is unclear who exactly is behind this ‘ideology’. However, according to the document, part of the enemy image is at least ‘gender theories’, which it says show a ‘gradual process of denaturalisation, that is a move away from nature and towards an absolute option for the decision of the feelings of the human subject’ (Congregation for Catholic Education (for educational institutions) 2019, no. 19). The documents of the Roman Catholic Church situate the phenomenon of trans* within this ’ideology’: trans* is against natural law or a natural order.

(Dis)order

The assumption of the binary nature of human gender and the associated dualism of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ forms an unquestioned or tacit strand in traditional theological statements about human beings. In fact, the theological conception of the human being is based on a static, bipolar arrangement of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ that God has imprinted on creation as an irrevocable order.

Further developed on the basis of theological statements on creation and also transferred to tasks and patterns of behaviour, the concept of gender as binary continues to function as a stable differentiation criterion and hierarchy-structuring ordering principle (Schreiber 2017). A gender order/ordered gender was created by means of theological ideas, dogmas and interpretation, and this gender order based on creation theology is still influential in large parts of Church doctrine and practice.

With regard to this creation ordinance, there are two currently conflicting perspectives in relation to trans* that the theologian Regina Ammicht Quinn summarises well. The first perspective desires to avoid disorder breaking into an existing, clear and intelligible creation ordinance. Gender disorder – through ambiguous gender or trans* – is a huge intrusion that challenges not just one but all facets of the well-maintained hierarchical gender binary order. Trans* is seen as a ‘declaration of war on the creation ordinance’ (Ammicht Quinn 2019, 238).

The second perspective assumes that ‘gender’ is complicated. Neither ‘nature’ nor ‘culture’ are orderly in a binary way. Susan Stryker describes a wide variety of systems that serve to organise people into gender groups: for example, according to the work people do, not the bodies they have. In some cultures, social gender can be changed on the basis of dreams, visions or prayers (Stryker 2008; Ammicht Quinn 2019).

This cultural perspective is complemented by Joan Roughgarden in the field of biology. She describes the grandiose and complex disorder of nature – where there is nothing that does not exist, and where this diversity is breathtaking and wonderful (Ammicht Quinn 2019; Roughgarden 2004).

Therefore, we should not speak of disorder breaking into order, but of order breaking into disorder: why are we so disturbed when God does not abide by human-made laws? (Ammicht Quinn 2019).

Perception of the positive growth potential for the doctrine of the Catholic Church

Regina Ammicht-Quinn offers perspectives for rethinking gender theologically. An increasing number of Catholic theologians are dealing with the topic or are trying to gain a new perspective on their research topic with the help of gender studies.

The magisterium of the Catholic Church continues to deal with gender studies and trans* in an undifferentiated way, which certainly indicates that there is a challenging task for the Roman Catholic Church. However, it does not reflect the attitude towards new challenges formulated in Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World of the Second Vatican Council). That document does not imply that making exclusions is a basis for expressing Christ’s message. Rather, it implies that current challenges are to be taken up critically and constructively ‘so that revealed truth can always be more deeply penetrated, better understood and set forth to greater advantage’ (GS 44).

Therefore, dealing seriously and in an interdisciplinary manner with the topic of trans* would also mean taking the challenge of gender studies seriously, that is, first getting rid of sweeping ideological statements in order to be able to perceive the positive growth potential for one’s own doctrine. If this is possible, the central concern would be to open up to the strengths of gender studies. This process of opening up sometimes also reveals one’s own weaknesses, which are often kept under wraps to protect one’s own position. Often, these weaknesses are hidden in ostensible strengths. Ultimately, the contradiction marked by Catholicism is based on the inextricably interwoven relationship between sex and gender, nature and culture. For years, critics have repeatedly pointed out that this line of argumentation in natural law is based on a petitio principii: from nature is derived what was previously projected into it, and thus nature is not normative by itself, but only along the lines of an anthropological project applied to it (Marschütz 2021).

Practical consequences of a Catholic ‘gender critique’

The consequence of an insistence on the classical conception of natural law can be seen in the isolation of the Church’s magisterium from social and scientific discourse, but above all from the real world of many believers. In addition, it has serious effects on individual people and their biographies.

The position of the Roman Catholic Church and the negating of scientific findings can result in pathologisation, discrimination and stigmatisation of gender minorities. The doctrinal positions make pastoral practice and care and religious education considerably more difficult, and can stir up resentment. Moreover, they do not represent the practice as it is lived in many educational institutions or parishes. Exclusion also adversely affects overall social development and supports oppressive systems.

This exclusion is evident in the way in which trans* people are disproportionately affected by discriminatory experiences in working life, and in their experience of financial burdens, high unemployment and suicidality. These factors, as well as the entire process of transition, can have a significant negative impact on a trans* person’s relationships, family and social environment and promote social isolation, discrimination and feelings of loneliness and being left alone (OECD 2020).

In addition, there are an incredible number of anti-trans* hate crimes worldwide, as well as discrimination by right-wing nationalist parties and governments, including derogatory and polemical statements and new anti-trans laws.

Paradigm shift

This experience is contrasted with the fact that trans* seems to have become well established in mainstream popular culture some time ago. Queerness and trans* have never been as visible and observable as they are today. For several decades, there have been figures – especially in popular culture – whose gender identity or expression does not match the gender they were assigned at birth.

However, we cannot ignore the fact that a normative image of being trans* is often portrayed that does not actually exist and leads to stereotyping (transnormativity). Although unifying elements can be perceived in the biographies, the whole variety of different life paths of trans* people can also be found. Research in various disciplines, including human sciences, means that changes in the classification of the phenomenon can be observed over the past twenty years. In addition, there are fundamental discussions within our society that question the strict categorisation into male and female in physical, psychological and social ways. This reflects medical treatment measures and social perceptions, and suggests that the diversity of human bodies should be given more consideration.⁵

Trans* in the context of Roman Catholic religious education

Trans* and school

For some years now, the topic of trans* has been receiving increased attention from the general public, at least in German-speaking countries. There are more and more reports in the media about trans* people and their experiences. Thus, more and more people are familiar with the term ‘trans*’. This new visibility can help young trans* people to find their own identity and to live in a self-determined way. However, this increasing attention should not hide the fact that there are still prejudices against trans* people and that discrimination is still an everyday occurrence.

In many situations, people must still fight for a self-determined, equal life for trans* people. This also applies to the ‘Lebensraum’ school (SCHLAU NRW and Netzwerk Geschlechtliche Vielfalt Trans* NRW e.V. (editor) 2019). In many schools, there are gaps in knowledge and uncertainties regarding trans* people. This is accompanied by a lack of treatment of the phenomenon of trans* in the classroom. However, the situation is particularly precarious for Roman Catholic religious education, which is common in Austria and attended by about 50% of all pupils.⁶ In addition to the fundamental difficulties in the school context with regard to the topic, there is also the context of the very questionable positioning of the magisterium.

Thus, at first glance, the topic touches on two different levels. First, there is the question of what this means for religious education teachers who are trans* or trans* people who would like to become religious education teachers. Second, it raises the question of how teachers can deal with the topic in religious education, given that trans* people are most likely sitting in their classroom at least some of the time.

(Un)dependencies

Experience shows that both levels are initially affected by a common set of problems. The individuals and teachers involved are dependent on the views, attitudes and practices of specific dioceses, schools and especially individuals. For example, the trans* person who wants to become a religious education teacher is dependent on the bishop of an individual diocese who may or may not grant a missio canonica.⁷ In principle, the official doctrine/magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church completely rejects the phenomenon of trans*, insists on natural law and denies trans* persons, for example, a change of gender entry in the parish register or the possibility of marriage, though there is obviously scope when Pope Francis speaks of accompanying and respecting trans* persons.⁸

An example of this is a case reported on in German-speaking areas when a diocesan bishop from Germany granted a trans* person a missio canonica and thus permission to teach religious education. However, this was only possible because the German Bishops’ Conference had previously published new regulations for the granting of the missio canonica. According to these new regulations, personal life situation, sexual orientation and gender identity were no longer to affect the granting of Catholic teaching permission. In a preamble to their document, the bishops emphasise that teachers of religious education are called to Christian witness regardless of their origin, age, disability, personal life situation, sexual orientation or gender identity (Deutsche Bischofskonferenz 2023). Previously, the trans* person mentioned in the case had been given only an ‘indefinite teaching permit’ signed by the vicar general.

Consequently, it is not only as a trans* person that one’s professional future – thus touching an existential area of life – is dependent on the attitude of individuals, because the missio canonica and the conditions for obtaining it are in the hands of a local bishop or, if a joint document is desired, in those of bishops’ conferences.

Pastoral necessities or signs of the times

The second question should be considered less from a canonical perspective and more from a pastoral-theological one. The findings named so far in this article ask the Roman Catholic Church and its theology to deal fundamentally with the topic of trans*, but also to listen to the individual life stories of trans* people. The topic concerns theology as a science and as a reflection on social and ecclesial occurrences. It also concerns the Church as an institution which, according to the ecclesiology of Vatican II, must have an interest in all realities and to which ‘nothing genuinely human is unfamiliar’ (GS 1). If the mission of constantly ‘scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel’ (GS 4) is taken seriously, then the growing awareness of the dignity and rights of trans* people and their life situations can be perceived as a sign of the times, because signs of the times are not just random phenomena or trends; rather they mark places where humanity is endangered and threatened, and the dignity and lives of people are at stake (Sander 2005).

Only a Church that tries to scrutinize and understand these signs will also be a Church in the world of today. Its task is to bring the liberating message of the kingdom of God to the world of today, in the language of the today’s time and society. This ability to speak can only be achieved if the Church dedicates itself to the life questions of people in the respective time and society. Thus, the questions and situations of the people of today are fundamentally important for the Church of today. Against this background, Gaudium et Spes 1 must also have real consequences: ‘The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ.’

This means understanding one’s own tasks in relation to those who are threatened and unheard – and this also includes trans* people. Therefore, an interdisciplinary, topical and human-centred discussion of the topic of trans* within theology is essential.

A change of perspective is needed

A pastoral-theological view of the topic in particular enables the Church to change its perspective, which it so urgently needs to do, because practical-theological questions and problems arise precisely where old patterns of behaviour no longer apply and old interpretations become questionable – where everyday life becomes ambiguous and fragile. They arise where injustice and discrimination – often structurally anchored – violate the dignity of people, and where life is endangered or damaged, because that is where the contradiction to the biblical vision becomes obvious and the need for action urgent (Klein 1999, 62).

This change of perspective calls for seeking and finding the starting point of all reflections in the everyday lives of those people who are still discriminated against because of their trans*ness in different contexts. It is necessary to make visible both their experiences and the social framework that condition their experiences.

The special role of religious education teachers

Teachers are particularly close to the everyday lives of young people. This is not the only reason why the perspective of religious education teachers and the content of religious education should be particularly important for theology and the Church. Religious education teachers often fulfil not only the role of imparting knowledge but also the role of pastoral care workers, confidants and mediators in the context of a class, but also within the school organisation as a whole. They are often seen as ‘neutral’ persons and bridge builders who are trusted.

However, they are also confronted with expectations coming from different directions and are involved in dependencies. The state, Church and academia are qualifying contexts, and pupils, school management and teaching colleagues as well as parents are everyday professional reference contexts that formulate their own expectations of religious education teachers.⁹

At the same time, pupils are dependent on the attitude of individual teachers, especially with regard to the topic of trans*. From a pastoral-theological perspective, it can be pointed out that it is the needs and experiences of the pupils themselves that should above all else be the focus. The consideration of trans* is by no means about coming-out counselling, tips on psychological or medical issues, or concrete expert counselling in cases of bullying. There are experts for that. However, gender-sensitive religious education and a sensitive, humane and reflective attitude of the teacher, who first and foremost perceives the needs of the pupils in religious education, can contribute to more gender justice in school and society and to the creation of a school atmosphere in which all pupils feel safe and accepted. Gender-sensitive religious education critically deals with the structures of gender-based discrimination in schools and classrooms and seeks possibilities for change (SCHLAU NRW and Netzwerk Geschlechtliche Vielfalt Trans* NRW e.V. editor 2019).

Gender-sensitive religious education

The aim is to make religious education, religious didactics and school life gender-sensitive by drawing attention to exclusionary cultures, structures and practices and pointing out possible alternatives. To do this, it is important for teachers to reflect on their own values, attitudes and behaviour, to practise a change of perspective, to critically question content and methods, and to discuss these with colleagues. This is because gender-sensitive religious education requires its teachers to constantly confront their function as gender-shaping role models. Beyond a doctrinal discussion that has moved far away from an interdisciplinary and contemporary discourse, gender-sensitive religious education critically engages with views on gender and their relationship to each other – in society, Christianity, the Bible and churches, and in other religious writings and traditions.

In this context, the dimension of gender is to be understood in an intersectional perspective as an important dimension of heterogeneity. ‘Gender’ may be constructed in religious education, but it can also be deconstructed and reconstructed there. This is because gender-sensitive and contemporary religious education is based on the idea that gender concepts and roles have grown historically, culturally and religiously and are therefore changeable. Gender-sensitive religious education is about making students and teachers aware of the ways in which masculinity and femininity are enacted in their lives. An approach that challenges existing views and habits – for example, through alienation or staging – can initiate new views and practices beyond standardisation. Gender images and hierarchical gender relations that are constricting can be questioned. New interpretations beyond standardisation should thus be made possible (Arzt et al. 2019).

Trans*-sensitive religious education

For Roman Catholic religious education, helpful and informative works and guidelines have already appeared in recent years that deal theoretically and practically with gender-sensitive religious education.¹⁰ A desideratum, however, is the concrete consideration of the topic of trans* and religious education. While gender-sensitive religious education already includes the topic of trans*, we are sometimes too stuck in the binary codes of male and female and forget that there is a much wider spectrum beyond the gender binary world. There is a need for concrete discussion, especially against the background that there are knowledge gaps and uncertainties concerning the topic of trans* in society as a whole and among teachers.

For religious education teachers in particular, a theological consideration of the topic is necessary, as could only be hinted earlier in this article. Beyond a doctrinal discourse, the topic of trans* shows that Christian thinking focuses on the relationship between God and human beings. God is relationship. Thus, especially in religious education, the question arises as to what it takes for a relationship to succeed, and the answer is certainly not ‘order’.

The relationship between teachers and pupils also makes a big difference in religious education. This is because the different expressions of gender must be appreciated equally. As a teacher, you could ask yourself: do I ensure that different expressions of trans*/queer, masculinity and femininity can be lived without devaluation in my lessons, in the class and in the school? Can pupils engage with different models of trans*, queer, femininity, masculinity in my religious education lessons, for example, through biographies? How can I promote acceptance of trans* people and respond appropriately to their coming out? (Arzt et al. 2019). This is because only a trans*-sensitive religious education is a ‘proper’ gender-sensitive religious education.

Perspectives

Church as a searching community

There is no doubt that gender diversity is an enormous challenge for the doctrine and practice of the Church. The changing reality of life continues to confront the Church today with the task of taking new responsibility for the Christian faith and its traditions in an increasingly complex and differentiated modern society. The Church is challenged in theory and practice to review what has been handed down and what exists, to preserve what has stood the test of time and to shape what is new. For these reasons, an interdisciplinary and contemporary reappraisal of the phenomenon trans* is essential and theologically relevant. This aim can only be achieved if the people concerned and their everyday lives are the sources of all considerations.

The Church should see itself as a ‘searching community’. On the one hand, because humans – despite all the adversities of life – are searching for a good life and for successful relationship. The task of the Church is to support and accompany people in their search, in their struggle for a good life. On the other hand, it is not the Roman Catholic Church or theology that has all the answers in abundance. It is itself a searcher. Practical theology in particular encourages discovery. It is a field that develops out of everyday practice, because people make theology out of themselves (Klein 1999).

People – whether pupils in religious education, trans* people or parishioners – are already producers of their theology. As theologians, we can encounter people and allow our knowledge to correspond with people’s experience. This encounter must be an encounter at eye level, and it must be reflected epistemologically in theology: an encounter of two who do theology. This form of encounter demands a certain attitude that must be practised by all those working in the Church. In the end, it is not about the Church and its own development, but about solidarity with one’s neighbour and the joint effort to contribute to a humane, life-enhancing shaping of Christian or ecclesial practice.

#Outinchurch or concretions

The initiative #OutInChurch – mentioned earlier – has continued to take the same approach with its reports on experiences and demands. However, taking the experiences of trans* people seriously, and developing appropriate measures for attitude and action, is not only in the hands of individual dioceses or parishes. Above all, it in the hands of those in positions of responsibility in the Roman Catholic Church. This involves, for example, labour law measures, questions of recognition, contemporary religious education and coming to terms with a history of guilt.

Last but not least, the Church and theology are asked: which theological images, concepts and theories still hold when the life stories of trans* people are taken seriously, and which do not?

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Stephanie Bayer

Stephanie Bayer Studied Catholic Theology (diploma programme comparable with master’s) with extension programme for ‘Catholic Religious Education’ in Linz and Paris. Currently scientific assistant at the Professorship of Pastoral Theology (Faculty of Theology, University of Lucerne); from 2019–2023, pre-doc assistant at the Department of Practical Theology (Faculty of Catholic Theology, University of Vienna); currently doctoral candidate in the subject of pastoral theology at the University of Vienna (working title: Trans* – An empirical-pastoral study about biographies of trans* people (Own translation, original title in German: Trans* – Eine empirisch-pastoraltheologische Studie zur Biografie von trans* Menschen).

Notes

1. a) Whenever the following text refers to the Church, theology or religious education, it always means the Roman Catholic Church, theology or denominational religious education. b) Why trans* with the asterisk*?: The asterix serves as a placeholder to add a wide variety of endings so that as many people as possible can find themselves in that term. It is used mainly in German-language trans* activism. c) LGBTIQA+: The acronym stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, and the + holds space for the expanding and new understanding of different parts of the very diverse gender and sexual identities. In North American contexts in the phrase LGBTQIA2S+ the ‘t’ means transgender and accomplishes the same thing.

2. The homepage of the initiative: https://outinchurch.de/[08.02.2024].

3. ARD is a joint organisation of Germany’s regional public-service broadcasters.

4. Link to the German-language documentation: https://www.ardmediathek.de/sendung/wie-gott-uns-schuf/Y3JpZDovL3JiYi1vbmxpbmUuZGUvd2llLWdvdHQtdW5zLXNjaHVm [08.02.2024].

5. You can find more information about these aspects at the homepage of WHO (https://www.who.int/europe/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1 [08.02.2024]) or in introductory literature, e.g. Schochow, M., Gehrmann, S. and Steger, F. (editors) 2016. Inter* und Trans*identitäten: Ethische, soziale und juristische Aspekte (Beiträge zur Sexualforschung 102). Gießen: Psychosozial-Verlag.

6. Numbers from 2021: https://religion.orf.at/stories/3209860/[08.02.2024].

7. In Roman Catholic usage missio canonica (canonical sending) is formal ecclesiastical commissioning for the permanent discharge of ecclesiastical offices (Ministry, Ministerial Offices) or for some specific functional activity as a special ministry, e.g. teaching religious education.

8. Cf. https://www.katholisch.de/artikel/10730-papst-homo-und-transsexuelle-nicht-ausgrenzen [08.02.2024].

9. For more information about roles of the religious education teacher cf. https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/ressourcen/wirelex/8-lernende-lehrende/lehrkraft-rolle [08.02.2024].

10. For example, Pithan, A., Arzt, S., Jakobs, M. and Knauth, T. 2009: Gender – Religion – Bildung: Beiträge zu einer Religionspädagogik der Vielfalt. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. or Qualbrink, A., Pithan, A. and Wischner, M. 2011: Perspektiven für einen genderbewussten Religionsunterricht. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. or Kohler-Spiegel, H. 2020. “Doing Gender lernen. Geschlechtergerechte Bildung im Religionsunterricht.“In Zeitschrift für Pädagogik und Theologie 72/1. 66–78. or Pemsel-Maier, S. 2017. “Geschlechter bilden“. Schlaglichter aus religionspädagogischer und bildungswissenschaftlicher Perspektive.“In Gender studieren. Lernprozess für Theologie und Kirche, edited by M. Eckholt. Ostfildern: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 121–138.