Instead, Jesus had offered only "solidarity" with the poor and suffering. Zollitsch said "that is this great perspective, this tremendous solidarity."
There is a possibility that the bishop's views are misrepresented or at least slanted by the interviewer.
There are at least three authentically Catholic ways to understand the sacrifice of Christ. We in the West are most familiar with St. Anselm's Atonement theory: Christ dies to atone, or satisfy, the offense given God by Adam. However, there is also Ransom theory where the sacrifice of Christ is seen as a direct confrontation with Satan (we don't need to go into that theory in the context of the article). And thirdly, and pertinently to the views of the bishop, there is a Pedagogical theory, according to whish Christ died to give us an example of moral living, -- if you will, in solidarity with man's suffering.
The heresy is to say that it is one and not the other. The problem is with "instead... only" part, which I reproduced in bold, but it is not a quote from the bishop. It is possible that he merely was pointing out that third view on the sacrifice is also valid, without rejecting the atonement theory altogether.
Further, as was already pointed out on this thread, the Atonement theory itself can be interpreted in a heretical way if it is intermixed with predestination of the reprobates. The Catholic teaching is that Christ did die for all men in the sense that salvation is available to all men, but it is not efficacious for sinners. So both statements, "Christ dies for all" and "Christ died for many/some" are correct statements.
This
Zollitsch has also said he accepts homosexual civil unions by states, but is against same-sex "marriage."
however, bodes ill.