Aboard the papal plane, Mar 8, 2021 / 03:00 pm (CNA).- Please read below for CNA’s full transcript of Pope Francis’ in-flight press conference from Baghdad, Iraq, to Rome, Italy on March 8, 2021.
Pope Francis: First of all, thank you for your work, your company, your fatigue. Then, today is Women’s Day. Congratulations to the women. Women’s Day. But they were saying why is there no Men’s Day? Even when [I was] in the meeting with the wife of the president. I said it was because us men are always celebrated and we want to celebrate women. And the wife of the president spoke well about women, she told me lovely things today, about that strength that women have to carry forward life, history, the family, many things. Congratulations to everyone. And third, today is the birthday of the COPE journalist. Or the other day. Where are you?
Matteo Bruni, Holy See press office director: It was yesterday.
Pope Francis: Best wishes and we should celebrate it, right? We will see how we can [do it] here. Very well. Now, the word is yours.
Bruni: The first question comes from the Arabic world: Imad Atrach of Sky News Arabia.
Imad Abdul Karim Atrach (Sky News Arabia): Holiness, two years ago in Abu Dhabi there was the meeting with the Imam al-Tayyeb of al-Azhar and the signing of the document on human fraternity. Three days ago you met with al-Sistani. Are you thinking to something similar with the Shiite side of Islam? And then a second thing about Lebanon, which St. John Paul II said is more than a country, it is a message. This message, unfortunately, as a Lebanese, I tell you that this message is now disappearing. Can we think a future visit by you to Lebanon is imminent?
Pope Francis: The Abu Dhabi document of February 4 was prepared with the grand imam in secret during six months, praying, reflecting, correcting the text. It was, I will say, a little assuming but take it as a presumption, a first step of what you ask me about.
Let’s say that this [Ed. meeting with al-Sistani] would be the second [step] and there will be others. It is important, the journey of fraternity. Then, the two documents. The Abu Dhabi one created a concern for fraternity in me, Fratelli tutti came out, which has given a lot. We must… both documents must be studied because they go in the same direction, they are seeking fraternity.
Ayatollah al-Sistani has a phrase which I expect to remember well. Every man… men are either brothers for religion or equals for creation. And fraternity is equality, but beneath equality we cannot go. I believe it is also a cultural path.
We Christians think about the Thirty Years’ War. The night of St. Bartholomew [Ed. St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre], to give an example. Think about this. How the mentality has changed among us, because our faith makes us discover that this is it: the revelation of Jesus is love, charity, and it leads us to this. But how many centuries [will it take] to implement it? This is an important thing, human fraternity. That as men we are all brothers and we must move forward with other religions.
The [Second] Vatican Council took a big step forward in [interreligious dialogue], also the later constitution, the council for Christian unity, and the council for religious dialogue — Cardinal Ayuso accompanies us today — and you are human, you are a child of God and you are my brother, period. This would be the biggest indication. And many times you have to take risks to take this step. You know that there are some critics who [say] “the pope is not courageous, he is an idiot who is taking steps against Catholic doctrine, which is a heretical step.” There are risks. But these decisions are always made in prayer, in dialogue, asking for advice, in reflection. They are not a whim and they are also the line that the [Second Vatican] Council has taught us. This is his first question.
The second: Lebanon is a message. Lebanon is suffering. Lebanon is more than a balance. It has the weakness of the diversity which some are still not reconciled to, but it has the strength of the great people reconciled like the fortress of the cedars. Patriarch Rai asked me to please make a stop in Beirut on this trip, but it seemed somewhat too little to me: A crumb in front of a problem in a country that suffers like Lebanon. I wrote a letter and promised to make a trip to Lebanon. But Lebanon at the moment is in crisis, but in crisis — I do not want to offend — but in a crisis of life. Lebanon is so generous in welcoming refugees. This is a second trip.
Bruni: Thank you, Your Holiness. The second question comes from Johannes Neudecker of the German news agency Dpa.
Johannes Neudecker (Deutsche Presse-Agentur): Thank you, Holy Father. My question is also about the meeting with al-Sistani. In what measure was the meeting with al-Sistani also a message to the religious leaders of Iran?
Pope Francis: I believe it was a universal message. I felt the duty of this pilgrimage of faith and penance to go and find a great man, a wise man, a man of God. And just listening to him you perceived this. And speaking of messages, I will say: It is a message for everyone, it is a message for everyone. And he is a person who has that wisdom and also prudence… he told me that for 10 years, “I do not receive people who come to visit me with also other political or cultural aims, no… only for religious [purposes].” And he was very respectful, very respectful in the meeting. I felt very honored; he never gets up even to greet people. He got up to greet me twice. A humble and wise man. This meeting did my soul good. He is a light. These wisemen are everywhere because God’s wisdom has been spread all over the world.
It also happens the same with the saints, who are not only those who are on the altars, they are the everyday saints, the ones I call “next-door saints.” Men and women who live their faith, whatever it may be, with coherence. Who live human values with coherence, fraternity with coherence. I believe that we should discover these people, highlight them, because there are so many examples. When there are scandals in the Church, many, this does not help, but we show the people seeking the path of fraternity. The saints next door. And we will find the people of our family, for sure. For sure a few grandpas, a few grandmas.
Eva Fernandez (Radio COPE): Holy Father, it is great to resume the press conferences again. It is very good. My apologies, but my colleagues have asked me to ask this question in Spanish.
[In Spanish] During these days your trip to Iraq has had a great impact throughout the world. Do you think that this could be the trip of your pontificate? And also, it has been said that it was the most dangerous. Have you been afraid at some point during this trip? And soon we will return to travel and you, who are about to complete the eighth year of your pontificate, do you still think it will be a short [pontificate]? And the big question always for the Holy Father, will you ever return to Argentina? Will Spain still have hope that one day the pope will visit?
Pope Francis: Thank you, Eva, and I made you celebrate your birthday twice — once in advance and another belated.
I start with the last question, which is a question that I understand. It is because of that book by my friend, the journalist and doctor, Nelson Castro. He wrote a book on [the history of] presidents’ illnesses, and I once told him, already in Rome, “But you have to do one on the diseases of the popes because it will be interesting to know the health issues of the popes — at least of some who are more recent.”
He started [writing] again, and he interviewed me. The book came out. They tell me it is good, but I have not seen it. But he asked me a question: “If you resign” — well, if I will die or if I will resign — “If you resign, will you return to Argentina or will you stay here?”
I said: “I will not go back to Argentina.” This is what I have said, but I will stay here in my diocese. But in that case, this goes together with the question: When will I visit Argentina? And why have I not gone there? I always answer a little ironically: “I spent 76 years in Argentina, that’s enough, isn’t it?”
But there is one thing. I do not know why, but it has not been said. A trip to Argentina was planned for November 2017 and work began. It was Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay. This was at the end of November. But then at that time there was an election campaign happening in Chile because on that day in December the successor of Michelle Bachelet was elected. I had to go before the government changed, I could not go [further].
So let us do this: Go to Chile in January. And then in January it was not possible to go to Argentina and Uruguay because January is like our August here, it is July and August in both countries. Thinking about it, the suggestion was made: Why not include Peru, because Peru was bypassed during the trip to Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay, and remained apart. And from this was born the January trip between Chile and Peru.
But this is what I want to say so that you do not create fantasies of “patriaphobia.” When there are opportunities, it must be done, right? Because there is Argentina and Uruguay and the south of Brazil, which are a very great cultural composition.
About my travels: I make a decision about my trips by listening. The invitations are many. I listen to the advice of the counselors and also to the people. Sometimes someone comes and says: What do you think? Should I go or not? And it is good for me to listen. And this helps me to make the decision later.
I listen to the counselors and in the end I pray. I pray and I think a lot. I have reflected a lot about some trips, and then the decision comes from within. It is almost spontaneous, but like a ripe fruit. It is a long way, isn’t it? Some are more difficult, some are easier, and the decision about this trip comes early.
The first invitation of the ambassador, first, that pediatrician doctor who was the ambassador of Iraq, very good. She persisted. And then came the ambassador to Italy who is a woman of battle. Then the new ambassador to the Vatican came and fought. Soon the president came. All these things stayed with me.
But there is one thing behind my decision that I would like to mention. One of you gave me a Spanish edition [of the book] “The Last Girl.” I have read it in Italian, then I gave it to Elisabetta Piqué to read. Did you read it? More or less it is the story of the Yazidis. And Nadia Murad tells about terrifying things. I recommend that you read it. In some places it may seem heavy, but for me this was the trasfondo of God, the underlying reason for my decision. That book worked inside me. And also when I listened to Nadia who came to tell me terrible things. Then, with the book… All these things together made the decision; thinking about all the many issues. But finally the decision came and I took it.
And, about the eighth year of my pontificate. Should I do this? [He crosses his fingers.] I do not know if my travel will slow down or not. I only confess that on this trip I felt much more tired than on the others. The 84 [years] do not come alone, it is a consequence. But we will see.
Now I will have to go to Hungary for the final Mass of the Eucharistic Congress, not a visit to the country, but just for the Mass. But Budapest is a two-hour drive from Bratislava, why not make a visit to Slovakia? I do not know. That is how they are thinking. Excuse me. Thank you.
Bruni: Thank you, Eva. Now the next question is from Chico Harlan of the Washington Post.
Chico Harlan (Washington Post): Thank you, Holy Father. I will ask my question in English with the help of Matteo. [In English] This trip obviously had extraordinary meaning for the people who got to see you, but it did also lead to events that caused conditions conducive to spreading the virus. In particular, unvaccinated people packed together singing. So as you weigh the trip, the thought that went into it and what it will mean, do you worry that the people who came to see you could also get sick or even die. Can you explain that reflection and calculation. Thank you.
Pope Francis: As I said recently, the trips are cooked over time in my conscience. And this is one of the [thoughts] that came to me most, “maybe, maybe.” I thought a lot, I prayed a lot about this. And in the end I freely made the decision. But that came from within. I said: “The one who allows me to decide this way will look after the people.” And so I made the decision like this but after prayer and after awareness of the risks, after all.
Bruni: The next question comes from Philippine de Saint-Pierre of the French press.
Philippine de Saint-Pierre (KTO): Your Holiness, we have seen the courage and dynamism of Iraqi Christians. We have also seen the challenges they face: the threat of Islamist violence, the exodus of Christians, and the witnesss of the faith in their environment. These are the challenges facing Christians through the region. We spoke about Lebanon, but also Syria, the Holy Land, etc. The synod for the Middle East took place 10 years ago but its development was interrupted with the attack on the Baghdad cathedral. Are you thinking about organizing something for the entire Middle East, be it a regional synod or any other initiative?
Pope Francis: I’m not thinking about a synod. Initiatives, yes — I am open to many. But a synod never came to mind. You planted the first seed, let’s see what will happen. The life of Christians in Iraq is an afflicted life, but not only for Christians. I came to talk about Yazidis and other religions that did not submit to the power of Daesh. And this, I don’t know why, gave them a very great strength. But there is a problem, like you said, with emigration. Yesterday, as we drove from Qaraqosh to Erbil, there were lots of young people and the age level was low, low, low. Lots of young people. And the question someone asked me: But these young people, what is their future? Where will they go? Many will have to leave the country, many. Before leaving for the trip the other day, on Friday, 12 Iraqi refugees came to say goodbye to me. One had a prosthetic leg because he had escaped under a truck and had an accident… so many escaped. Migration is a double right. The right to not emigrate and the right to emigrate. But these people do not have either of the two. Because they cannot not emigrate, they do not know how to do it. And they cannot emigrate because the world squashes the consciousness that migration is a human right.
The other day — I’ll go back to the migration question — an Italian sociologist told me, speaking about the demographic winter in Italy: “But within 40 years we will have to import foreigners to work and pay pension taxes.” You French are smarter, you have advanced 10 years with the family support law and your level of growth is very large.
But immigration is experienced as an invasion. Because he asked, yesterday I wanted to receive Alan Kurdi’s father after Mass. This child is a symbol for them. Alan Kurdi is a symbol, for which I gave a sculpture to FAO [the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations]. It is a symbol that goes beyond a child who died in migration. He is a symbol of dying civilizations, which cannot survive. A symbol of humanity. Urgent measures are needed so that people have work in their place and do not have to emigrate. And also measures to safeguard the right to emigrate. It is true that every country must study well the ability to receive [immigrants], because it is not only about receiving them and leaving them on the beach. Receive them, accompany them, help them progress, and integrate them. The integration of immigrants is key.
Two anecdotes: Zaventem, in Belgium: the terrorists were Belgians, born in Belgium, but from ghettoized, non-integrated Islamic immigrants. Another example: when I went to Sweden, during the farewell ceremony, there was the minister, of what I don’t know, [Ed. Alice Bah-Kuhnke, Swedish Minister of Culture and Democracy from 2014 to 2019], she was very young, and she had a distinctive appearance, not typical of Swedes. She was the daughter of a migrant and a Swede, and so well integrated that she became minister [of culture]. Looking at these two things, they make you think a lot, a lot, a lot.
I would like to thank the generous countries. The countries that receive migrants, Lebanon. Lebanon was generous with emigrants. There are two million Syrians there, I think. And Jordan — unfortunately, we will not pass over Jordan because the king is very nice, King Abdullah wanted to pay us a tribute with the planes in passage. I will thank him now — Jordan has been very generous [with] more than one and a half million migrants, also many other countries… to name just two. Thank you to these generous countries. Thank you very much.
Matteo Bruni: The next question is in Italian from the journalist Stefania Falasca.
Stefania Falasca (Avvenire): Good morning, Holy Father. Thank you. In three days in this country, which is a key country of the Middle East, you have done what the powerful of the earth have been discussing for 30 years. You have already explained what was the interesting genesis of your travels, how the choices for your travels originate, but now in this juncture, can you also consider a trip to Syria? What could be the objectives from now to a year from now of other places where your presence is required?
Pope Francis: Thank you. In the Middle East only the hypothesis, and also the promise is for Lebanon. I have not thought about a trip to Syria. I have not thought about it because the inspiration did not come to me. But I am so close to the tormented and beloved Syria, as I call it. I remember from the beginning of my pontificate that afternoon of prayer in St. Peter’s Square. There was the rosary, adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. And how many Muslims with carpets on the ground were praying with us for peace in Syria, to stop the bombing, at that moment when it was said that there would be a fierce bombing. I carry Syria in my heart, but thinking about a trip, it has not occurred to me at this moment. Thank you.
Matteo Bruni: Thank you. The next question comes from Sylwia Wysocka of the Polish press.
Sylwia Wysocka (Polish Press Agency): Holy Father, in these very difficult 12 months your activity has been very limited. Yesterday you had the first direct and very close contact with the people in Qaraqosh: What did you feel? And then, in your opinion, now, with the current health system, can the general audiences with people, with faithful, recommence as before?
Pope Francis: I feel different when I am away from the people in the audiences. I would like to restart the general audiences again as soon as possible. Hopefully the conditions will be right. I will follow the norms of the authorities in this. They are in charge and they have the grace of God to help us in this. They are responsible for setting the rules, whether we like them or not. They are responsible and they have to be so.
Now I have started again with the Angelus in the square, with the distances it can be done. There is the proposal of small general audiences, but I have not decided until the development of the situation becomes clear. After these months of imprisonment, I really felt a bit imprisoned, this is, for me, living again.
Living again because it is touching the Church, touching the holy people of God, touching all peoples. A priest becomes a priest to serve, to serve the people of God, not for careerism, right? Not for the money.
This morning in the Mass there was [the Scripture reading about] the healing of Naaman the Syrian and it said that Naaman wanted to give gifts after he had been healed. But he refused… but the prophet Elisha refused them. And the Bible continues: the prophet Elisha’s assistant, when they had left, settled the prophet well and running he followed Naaman and asked for gifts for him. And God said, “the leprosy that Naaman had will cling to you.” I am afraid that we, men and women of the Church, especially we priests, do not have this gratuitous closeness to the people of God which is what saves us.
And to be like Naaman’s servant, to help, but then going back [for the gifts.] I am afraid of that leprosy. And the only one who saves us from the leprosy of greed, of pride, is the holy people of God, like what God spoke about with David, “I have taken you out of the flock, do not forget the flock.” That of which Paul spoke to Timothy: “Remember your mother and grandmother who nursed you in the faith.” Do not lose your belonging to the people of God to become a privileged caste of consecrated, clerics, anything.
This is why contact with the people saves us, helps us. We give the Eucharist, preaching, our function to the people of God, but they give us belonging. Let us not forget this belonging to the people of God. Then begin again like this.
I met in Iraq, in Qaraqosh… I did not imagine the ruins of Mosul, I did not imagine. Really. Yes, I may have seen things, I may have read the book, but this touches, it is touching.
What touched me the most was the testimony of a mother in Qaraqosh. A priest who truly knows poverty, service, penance; and a woman who lost her son in the first bombings by ISIS gave her testimony. She said one word: forgiveness. I was moved. A mother who says: I forgive, I ask forgiveness for them.
I was reminded of my trip to Colombia, of that meeting in Villavicencio where so many people, women above all, mothers and brides, spoke about their experience of the murder of their children and husbands. They said, “I forgive, I forgive.” But this word we have lost. We know how to insult big time. We know how to condemn in a big way. Me first, we know it well. But to forgive, to forgive one’s enemies. This is the pure Gospel. This is what touched me the most in Qaraqosh.
Matteo Bruni: There are other questions if you want. Otherwise we can…
Pope Francis: How long has it been?
Bruni: Almost an hour.
Pope Francis: We have been talking for almost an hour. I don’t know, I would continue, [joking] but the car… [is waiting for me.] Let’s do, how do you say, the last one before celebrating the birthday.
Matteo Bruni: The last is by Catherine Marciano from the French press, from the Agence France-Presse.
Catherine Marciano (AFP): Your Holiness, I wanted to know what you felt in the helicopter seeing the destroyed city of Mosul and praying on the ruins of a church. Since it is Women’s Day, I would like to ask a little question about women… You have supported the women in Qaraqosh with very nice words, but what do you think about the fact that a Muslim woman in love cannot marry a Christian without being discarded by her family or even worse. But the first question was about Mosul. Thank you, Your Holiness.
Pope Francis: I said what I felt in Mosul a little bit en passant. When I stopped in front of the destroyed church, I had no words, I had no words… beyond belief, beyond belief. Not just the church, even the other destroyed churches. Even a destroyed mosque, you can see that [the perpetrators] did not agree with the people. Not to believe our human cruelty, no. At this moment I do not want to say the word, “it begins again,” but let’s look at Africa. With our experience of Mosul, and these people who destroy everything, enmity is created and the so-called Islamic State begins to act. This is a bad thing, very bad, and before moving on to the other question — A question that came to my mind in the church was this: “But who sells weapons to these destroyers? Because they do not make weapons at home. Yes, they will make some bombs, but who sells the weapons, who is responsible? I would at least ask that those who sell the weapons have the sincerity to say: we sell weapons. They don’t say it. It’s ugly.
Women… women are braver than men. But even today women are humiliated. Let’s go to the extreme: one of you showed me the list of prices for women. [Ed. prepared by ISIS for selling Christian and Yazidi women.] I couldn’t believe it: if the woman is like this, she costs this much… to sell her… Women are sold, women are enslaved. Even in the center of Rome, the work against trafficking is an everyday job.
During the Jubilee, I went to visit one of the many houses of the Opera Don Benzi: Ransomed girls, one with her ear cut off because she had not brought the right money that day, and the other brought from Bratislava in the trunk of a car, a slave, kidnapped. This happens among us, the educated. Human trafficking. In these countries, some, especially in parts of Africa, there is mutilation as a ritual that must be done. Women are still slaves, and we have to fight, struggle, for the dignity of women. They are the ones who carry history forward. This is not an exaggeration: Women carry history forward and it’s not a compliment because today is Women’s Day. Even slavery is like this, the rejection of women… Just think, there are places where there is the debate regarding whether repudiation of a wife should be given in writing or only orally. Not even the right to have the act of repudiation! This is happening today, but to keep us from straying, think of what happens in the center of Rome, of the girls who are kidnapped and are exploited. I think I have said everything about this. I wish you a good end to your trip and I ask you to pray for me, I need it. Thank you.
[…]
The German Catholic Church. Flush with cash. Few go to Church there. And Marx and fellow bishops are hell-bent on maintaining black is white.
And Pope Francis does nothing except agree by omission.
AL has brought out the furies and tell me that this is not a full court press to bring down the Church in the name of false understanding and compassion.
Amoris Laetitia was simply a ruse to get approval for homosexual unions. If you can’t deny the Eucharist to adulterers then you can’t deny the Eucharist to anybody. The St. Gallen and lavender mafias have not only succeeded in getting the camel’s nose under the tent they’ve got the whole herd inside with the complicity of the Bishop of Rome.
According yo the Gospel, Jesus declared such relations as “abomination:
Francis believes in what Marx believes.
What counts in Francis-Kirk is big German cash (Marx), post-Catholic disbelief (Kasper) and homo-erotic sociology (the whole bunch of them, from the election manger Cardinal “coverup” Danneels, and all of their propagandists Martin, Reese, Tucson Fernandez, Forte and Coccopalmieri, and their most-favored sex abuser – “Rev.” Mauro Inzoli – restored to priestly faculties by Francis – just to show the victims’ poor parents what mercy means NOW.
Defending the faith is not easy. Perhaps it might be simpler if the Pope would exclude certain non-compatible types from practicing the faith. Just imagine… we would no longer have exhausting discussions about a valid sacramental marriage. We would no longer baptize foster children of a Gay couple. We would be free of verifying that a Gay couple was remaining celibate as they cohabitate. The length of time spent at a confessional would be less because the sinners sins would be much simpler, like mine.
“if the Pope would exclude certain non-compatible types from practicing the faith.”
He doesn’t have to bother. They’re already not practicing the Faith.
Interesting that you capitalize “Gay” but not “Faith.” That tells us everything we need to know about you: practicing perversion is good, obedience to God and to the Church is baaaaaaaad.
Sorry, but truly read what you posted! To practice the Faith, is to work at it. Meaning you are sincerely attempting to avoid serious sin, not changing what sin is. God said, not one letter of the law will be changed.
Unfortunately, Marx is no the only bishop who considers homosexual “unions” not only to exist but to be protected and blessed. I read somewhere that whilst Pope Francis is against what is called “gay marriage”, but he is not against homosexual “unions” or so-called “civil unions”, which is only another way of approving sodomy. The Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmud Martin, át the time of the gay marriage referendum also defended so-called “civil unions”.
Asregards priestly celibacy in the Eastern Church, I consider the changes brought about by the Council in Trullo (or Quinisext) held at Constantinople in 691-692, which approved the present custom, to be a deviation from the original and universal tradition of the Church going back to the time of the apostles, as Fr. Christian Cecchini demonstrates. This Synod was never approved by any Pope and had an anti-Roman animus, and it also speciously attempted to base its devious teaching on the Council of Carthage of 393. The Orthodox a few centuries later even came to the extreme of forbidding the ordination of unmarried men. I invite readers to check the article by Fr.Donald Keefe, S.J which makes an excellent case for the theological nature of priestly celibacy and offers useful bibliography http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1741134/posts
Canonist Edward Peters cogently argues in favor of the application of the lex continentiae to permanent deacon, an argument brought up by Cardinal Stickler and ignored at the time of the Council: http://www.canonlaw.info/a_deacons.htm
Now that the Synod for the Amazonian region is likely to provide cover for introducing “exceptions” on priestly celibacy, as the two Synods were intended to give cover to the matter of giving Holy Communion to the “divorced and remarried”, anyone interested in pursuing the matter will find useful information in by following the above links. Once the dyke is broken, the water will flow. That is how fasting disappeared from the life of the Church, by becoming optional.Priestly celibacy is about to get the same treatment, and the Germany episcopate has already expressed its desire for it as if the Orthodox and the Protestants have abundant vocations.
‘Dike’not ‘dyke’. Legit, as secondary option, but in common parlance the substitution of ‘i’ for ‘y’ indicates the (those) ladies!
At bottom…this cafeteria approach to scripture has infected both your heroes and your villains….starting within TOB in the mid ’80’s in the section on wifely obedience.
For me, the two previous Popes taught all these loons ( and appointed some of them if not most) but taught them by precedent by inter alia their own campaign publicly to end the death penalty worldwide which contradicts Rom.13:4 and their own ccc 2267 which said…rare use might be needed…( itself laughable but closer to orthodox than abolition). We are now post biblical. The three recent Popes never mentioned Romans 13:4…these pro gay magisterial figures will never mention Romans 1:26 “Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.”
But the process is identical….pick and choose what you prefer in scripture….don’t harmonize antilogies per Jerome.
St. JPII actually had a partial only love of scripture. Forget the death penalty. On wifely obedience, he would only quote Ephesians and not the other five New Testament verses that clear as a bell require wifely obedience ( Mulieris Digitatem 24/ TOB 89). Ephesians allowed him to use the intro to 3 successive obediences…”be subject to one another”….wives to husbands, children to both parents, slaves to masters…to imply that husbands must submit ( which they do in a myriad of small things but Ephesians wasn’t saying that but introducing three cases of obedience in big things.). By making it not an intro but part only of the first pairing…marriage couples…he thought it was ” the gospel innovation” that departed from the other NT verses that reflected “the old way”….of Sarah calling Abraham..”Lord” mentioned by one of those five verses who would not quote.
Our problems are both Biblical cafeteriaism throughout the clergy of all levels….and insufficient excommunications….for 37 years now. We need a top rated corporate consultancy firm to come in from the outside…and tell the Pope that because he won’t listen to me because I don’t hold a chair of theology…though I do have a Drexel commonwealth chair with the individual nailheads done per piece by hand in muted gold suede leather…but I digress. Catholicism is the true Church and its a mess because Popes don’t Administrate…the most needed part of the job since 1979…they change the job into doing what they liked as a lad. Two of them liked authoring…they kept admin to three hours a week and wrote their heads off. This one likes endless talking about international affairs and likes traveling…so that’s what he does. He uses more fossil fuel than a BMW M3 owned by a twenty year old.
Did any of them take measures to reduce the hookup or fornication rate in many Catholic colleges ( Newman Society…30-40% in some Catholic colleges)? Not a one. They do what they like. Benedict liked writing about the saints. That’s what he did. Were the Catholic hookup crowd reading his saint monographs? No…people who didn’t need those monographs were reading them. Popes are doing their hobby…as being their job…with three or four hours admin a week when we need 50 hours admin from them.
people who didn’t need those monographs were reading them.
Amen.
The Church remains wildly mismanaged and all people can so is shrug. And cognize its leaders. A bit amazing. Its like CEOs of failing companies getting raises…
Since Cardinal Marx is one of the closest papal advisers, Pope Francis has an obligation to offer fraternal correction to Cardinal Marx, since Cardinal Marx’s statements are a source of scandal to the faithful. If Pope Francis does not, which appears to be his MO regarding his supporters, this would suggest, with little doubt, that he sees no problem with Cardinal Marx’s statements.
Someone please remind me again why the SSPX is wrong? It seems to me that as each day passes being “in communion” is a term that only refers to earthly institutional unity and has very little to do with being one in the Faith. How is Marx in “full communion” and “good standing” when he directly contradicts the Catechism in public? How is it that excommunicated bishops who are aligned with the Chinese regime are now in full communion and loyal bishops in China or SSPX bishops are on the outs? This makes no sense whatsoever.
Because when a group rejects a council of the church, they are in violation of Vatican I and many Catholic Doctrines. Plus, when they go and ordain their own bishops, this is nothing more than a protestant runaway sect. I say this as someone who prefers the traditional Latin Mass. You can sympathize with rebels, but you cannot condone them.
I’m not an SSPX member, but in their defence they do not violate any Catholic teachings. If today was 1958 they would simply be regular Catholics. Think about that: yesterday’s faithful Catholics are now today’s “rebels”. You’ll probably be labelled a rebel soon if you continue to believe the official Catechism. Like you, I used to judge the SSPX harshly but given the state of the conciliar Church I think we have no right to judge them. Personally, I’m exploring Eastern Catholic Churches as a hopeful safe harbour.
So the Arian’s were right because they operated according to rules in place prior to the council that denounced Arianism? So its OK for a group to ordain their own bishops when they disagree with the Vatican? The womyn priest people will be glad to hear it. Oh ye of little faith who run away to seek different churches when the going gets rough.
One more thing. The SSPX doesn’t reject Vatican 2. They only reject those parts that contradict previous Catholic teaching. (And since Vatican 2 did not claim to promulgate any new doctrines, the SSPX is still in conformity with Church doctrine). Yes, they have “impaired communion” with the official Church, but given the state of affairs today, I would ask: who doesn’t? Besides, they haven’t changed, we have; and that reality is something to meditate on. The reason I bring the SSPX up is that given the confusion and false teaching coming from bishops and official Vatican sources these days I wonder what being “in communion” really means. What’s the deeper meaning of that concept?
What BS. No serious catholic prelate or theologian approves of SSPXs rejection of large parts of Vatican II Creating your own bishops is something we expect of heretics. Cardinal Burke does not approve. Cardinal Sarah does not approve. Four documents of Vatican II are magisterial.SSOX does not get to form their own church where they decide the holy spirit did not protect Vatican II. If they reject Vatican II, they reject the whole thing and are protestants, in rebellion
a) Your Arian analogy is false. Arians were heretical. The SSPX holds no heretical beliefs. Not one. And if I remember my history, St. Athanasius also would have been considered a rebel because he was one of the few bishops to not go Arian when all else had.
b) The excommunications of the SSPX bishops were lifted by Pope Benedict XVI. So you can stop your hand wringing about the consecrations. BTW Pope Francis has given SSPX priests the faculties to hear confessions and confer the sacrament of marriage. Does he do that for Protestant groups? No. He’s given them that faculty because they are Catholic.
c) You seem to be missing the bigger question. What does “full communion” really mean? As it stands now, if you believe in the Catechism’s teaching on divorce, second unions and communion you too stand in opposition to Pope and his allies. Are you now a rebel for being what the Church taught up until a few years ago? Think about it. 🙂
I suspect that the SSPX will be seen a lot more sympathetically by a lot more people before too long. I also suggest that they are not entirely wrong in their assessment of the situation.
Francis is a bad pope and his reign has been one disaster after another, but he is not the problem. He is the quintessential Vatican II bishop/pope. the problem existed before he was elected. You do not get Francis without Vatican II and you cannot prevent another Francis (or fix what he’s done) without a serious real re-evaluation of Vatican II.
You are right. It makes no sense whatever. Apostates, heretics, and schismatics not only claim to be in “full communion” and “good standing” in the Church but also are actually rewarded by this pope with titles of ”cardinal,” “archbishop,” and “bishop” and given positions of leadership in the Vatican and in their own contries. Where are the faithful and orthodox bishops condemning these hideous outraged and demanding the pope’s removal?
Exactly!
I could not agree more. I used to be skeptical, if not hostile to the SSPX, but how can any serious minded person not believe Lefebvre was right? Prelates like Marx were selected by the great reformers of the reform. St. JPII elevated him to the episcopate and Benedict XVI created him Cardinal. He is only 64! Think of how much longer he has to go. When the great promoters of Catholic orthodoxy are making appointments like this it becomes very difficult to not believe that the Traditionalists were right all along. The SSPX has been acting as the Church’s conscience for several decades. I cannot imagine how much worse things would be if they did not exist.
My thoughts, exactly!
Has anyone ever inquired of Cardinal Marx as to what is the “telos” of this pastoral care? The blessing of a same-sex “union” would pastor, say, the two men toward what? Does Cdl. Marx propose that the priest bless the gay couple so as to pastor them towards friendship without sexual activity? Has he ever been asked this question? It seems that the answer to that question would determine whether he is a sincere but misguided gradualist or a downright scoundrel.
Given that Marx and most prelates are Teilhardians (Teilhard de Chardin, who was severely repressed by Pious XII–what I wouldn’t give for a man like HH Pope Pious XII–who declared his rights forbidden). Teilhardians don’t understand Aristotle or Aquinas and, in fact, reject them.
Forget about teleology–these men think the natural state of all things is inclusiveness.
Thanks for the response. My own opinion on this is that there really are no formal “gradualists” or any true “gradualism” – just prelates lacking in faith who hope “gradually” to erase Church doctrine only because they can’t erase it in one single wipe.
Just to “consider” blessing same-sex couples is bad. These bishops must be warned and the next step must to be remove them from theor priesthood. They are giving scandal to their flocks.
Why is it so hard for everyone to say “apostasy” when a Cardinal on the Vatican’s C9 ruling council publicly claims God’s blessing on a sin that Scripture says “cries out to heaven for vengeance” without the slightest reproof or punishment by the pope?
Cardinal Marx getting on the “Let’s bless homosexual unions” bandwagon is very significant. It seems to me that the homosexual movement in the upper reaches of the church is now starting a full court press to have homosexuality approved. Despite what the scriptures say about it. All of a sudden, the homosexualists are on the march. There is something behind this. Perhaps they have advance notice that the Pope is ill, or perhaps they just feel they have five good years left to get everything homosexuals want done before they might have to deal with a non homosexualist Pope. The statements that Amoris Laetitia opens the door to use of contraception by Chiodi was a major door opening. It is clear now that they want to use AL as the means to tear down any Catholic doctrine they disagree with, on the theory that they are being “pastoral”. The sneaky thing is they will say the doctrine still stands, but each bishop or priest can decide to ignore it. We saw what happened with indults for taking communion in the hand. It quickly became STANDARD PRACTICE, essentially destroying the rule. AL is no different. It is the homosexual get out of jail for free card. The game is afoot, Watson. Watch the homosexual wheels start turning in coming weeks.
The final assault on the Catechism has begun. A proposal to change the Catechism will be made soon. Accompanied by all the usual jesuit-speak theological gymnastics.
The upper echelons of the Vatican will offer no resistance as they have laid the groundwork for it.
They think we are stupid. We are not. We simply have not the earthly power their positions afford them.
Is there anyone but me who suspects a cornered relationship between the Papal defense of the Argentine Bishop and this out-of-control German cleric? Sounds like three peas in a pod.
“What now?” is already answered in your powerful indictment.
Latin bishops don’t need to wait for the pope; if Marx is wrong they can excommunicate him themselves.
“The blessing is not of a person but the homosexual union.”
Such nonsense, pregnant with contradiction, ripe for sarcasm.
A *relation* has no existence apart from its data points – in this case human ones.
This is even so at the subatomic level where the measurables (observables) are the *effects* of a relation. Even here data points still matter.
Isolating, severing, a relation into its own existent is to bypass (the) moral & material law, vacating law of both its descriptive & prescriptive force.
Once so isolated the “relation” becomes a law unto itself as it attempts to call itself into existence apart from reference and referents. Relations, thereby, become constructs of human will – signifying nothing but arbitrary pride and caprice – unbound and unsettled.
[And, we have yet to speak of relations of *proper, lawful* referents!]
A relation unbound by referents is not a thing that exists. In short, there is no there there for Bishop (Cardinal) Marx to bless.
It is something that has started and it seems nothing can stop it but God Himself.
Irenaeus was born in the first half of the second century. His words are an ancient testimony to the unity and universality (catholicity) of the Church. Catholic belief and practice were like the sun; in the essentials the Church was “one and the same throughout the whole world.” This is because the One Holy Spirit Christ promised to send the Church was guiding it.
Let’s be honest about what is at stake here. Bergoglio, by his silence, is signalling his approval of blatant heresy in several dioceses around the world. Qui tacet consentit. (Who is silent consents.) He is thereby engaged in an assault on the universality of the teachings of the Church of which Irenaeus spoke. The Pope, it seems — if Bergoglio really is a legitimate pope, and not an anti-pope due to the violations of canon law in his election — is attempting to destroy the Catholic Church.
If the Church is not the same in the essentials of belief and practice universally it is not the Catholic (Universal) Church. If what is blessed in one diocese is a mortal sin in another, Catholicism is being destroyed. A genuine successor of Peter protected by the Holy Spirit simply cannot explicitly approve of this — or signal his approval of it by his silence.
Contrary to the scholarly opinions of canon lawyers that decided Bergoglio was legitimately elected, he may provide proof himself that he simply cannot be a genuine pope.
Are you aware that while archbishop, the Pope appealed against the condemnation of a priest found guilty in Argentina of paedophilia ? When questioned by a reporter of A2 ( French TV he turned his back on her. Doesn’t sound to me like someone opposed to church doctrine.
“After all, the big battle of our time is anthropological” (Carl Olson). Which is why Aquinas states Evil is in the will of man, due to a willful privation of direction to a due end. The Pontiff, Cardinal Marx perceive homosexuality within a radical shift away from John Paul II’s Christocentric anthropology to the Anthropocentric vision of theologian philosopher Gerhard Hover. Hover argues if time is reduced to the continuous motion of Aristotelian tradition [form and absence of form which affects human acts] it must be taken as an excessive limitation. Time then is actually greater than the space by which it is measured. Human acts are of themselves transient in nature inclusive of their intrinsic moral nature due to the exigency of Time. This refers to Pope Francis’ Paradigm Shift in which time, a “New Epoch” and current exigency surpass previous exigency. This theorem [Hover’s] in effect denies evil is in contradiction to God since evil is not intrinsic to the act but determined by temporal circumstances. Evil must then exist as commensurate to the divine justice as good or evil, but dependent on human judgment and not the infinitely good divine nature. Then nothing is intrinsically and forever evil to God. Since it is man that determines what is good or evil. It sweeps away the entire Apostolic Tradition and revelation of Christ that are the rule of morality and reason the measure. It is Antichrist. God unchanging undivided Pure Act and First Principle cannot be subject to moral divisibility that mirrors a Zoroastrian good and evil composite of justice, namely what is evil today is good tomorrow. In God there is no Darkness.
Is this the same twisted logic that says that Judas didn’t want to betray Jesus and is a good guy! Yes, as a perversion of truth they are making themselves false Gods. In their unholy confusion the true triune God becomes irrevelent! We have to pray that they will find the the truth and the truth will set them free!
I think we must seriously consider discovering whether people like Marx are themselves homosexual, practicing or otherwise. We would never dream of putting, say, a kleptomaniac in charge of a diocese’s museum of sacred vessels, would we? Why then is it sane to put those with this peculiar personality disorder in charge of “explaining” the 6th Commandment? So much damage has already been done to the Church by people like Rembert Weakland, Paul Shanley, and host of other closet sodomite clerics in the past. Isn’t it mere prudence to expose those prelates, priests, and nuns now seeking to drown Paul of Tarsus in a sea of lies? Why should we passively stand by while and allow their diseased minds to ruin the Church?
What is Cardinal Marx’s understanding (definition) of the word “union”? If he means a platonic (ADJECTIVE((of love or friendship)) intimate and affectionate but not sexual:
“their relationship is purely platonic”) union I see no problem with blessing this “union”. If he understands it to mean a sexual union then it is wrong to bless them.
“As it was in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they bought and sold, they planted and built. But the day that Lot left Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even so shall it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.”–Jesus Christ, Gospel of Luke 17:28-30
It’s very difficult to convince many Christians that homosexual practices are wrong – evil. What no one will talk about is that homosexual sex by it’s very nature is horribly abusive. One must abuse, and the other must submit to abuse. There are emotional , spiritual and psychological consequences when one has chosen to live out a life of abuse. God gives us laws to protect ourselves, live peacefully with each other and serve Him. To abuse ourselves or another is contrary to God’s laws – even if the abuse is consensual.
No rules. Right.
So will Cardinal Marx consecrate unions between adults and children?
Close relatives?
Individuals and their favorite foods?
On what basis would he discriminate? There may well be love in those cases, and happiness.
And how have the circumstances of humanity changed? People, their successes, and their failings, seem much the same today as they did in Aristophanes’ time.
The way things are going is going to expedite God’s pronouncement: “Enough !”
It would appear that if we extrapolate from the past, the next orthodox conservative Pope will call for Vatican III and invite all who are not on board with traditional theology and belief, to find another religious home. I find nothing in scripture or in private revelation that assures the Church of a straight line growth chart. A bit of house cleaning from time to time greatly aids in keeping out damaging elements.
SO this the the new Marxism: “love” your neighbor if he looks like yourself. Marx is less serious than his brother Groucho or his uncle Karl. No real man or woman will fall for this nonsense, but the current hierarchy of perverts in the vatican do believe it. This is proof: nothing’s been done to stop it.
The catholic church has become like all the other modern churches: watered-down liberal nonsense. Soon we will see tranny priests……God help us.
Great essay, Carl. Sorry I missed it when it first came out.
Frankly, I don’t think Reinhard has the common sense of Groucho; I think he’s more a clown like Harpo.
THE QUESTION THAT’S NEVER ANSWERED
On the whole LGBT matter, there is one question that I never see answered by those Catholics who oppose what is being said and done by Cardinal Marx (and other bishops & priests like him).
The question is: How should a present-day society treat LGBT people?
If there was, right now, in the year 2018, a nation that was composed of 90% faithful Catholics, how would that nation treat the 1% or 2% of the population that would be LGBT people?
Let’s call that nation Catholandia.
In Catholandia, would LGBT have any rights against discrimination in employment, or in renting apartments?
Or would the citizens of Catholandia have complete liberty to do conduct no business whatsoever with known or suspected LGBT people?
Would it be the aim of the leaders and people of Catholandia to drive the 1% or 2% LGBT people back into the closet just to survive, as was the case in all Western nations prior to the 1960s/1970s?
Would the government of Catholandia make homosexual sexual activity a crime, such as it was when Alan Turing and Oscar Wilde were arrested?
I’m not defending Cardinal Marx.
But I think Cardinal Marx would defend himself by pointing out that we now know that, for some people at least, the homosexual sexual orientation is a not a choice, but is a compulsion that is as strong as is the heterosexual sexual orientation. And he’d point out that adult LGBT people often have stable relationships, and generally are law-abiding, productive citizens.
So, this leads me back to my original question: In an ideal Catholic society of today, what should be the situation of LGBT people? Should they be driven back into the closet by the fear of arrest or assault or total social exclusion? Is that really a Christian way to treat people who can’t help how they were born?
I’m really asking. I don’t know the answer. I am really surprised at what has happened in the U.S. society regarding LGBT people, the widespread normalization and liberalization.
I don’t know what the answer is, though I must say that the prospect of driving all those people into the closet seems dubious from a Christian point of view. Yet, I admit I don’t know.
But I am tired of all the endless criticism of the new situation by people who never make clear what their ultimate agenda is. How can anyone sign on to a movement when they don’t know what the ultimate destination is?
So, what do you say would be ultimate, ideal situation for LGBT people in any society that could conceivably come into existence?
There is no new situation Bartolome.
And the issue is NOT about granting or denying rights.
The issue = the Kasper/Bergoglio definition of the post-Catholic cult:
Salvation… “here and now” means “each individual can feel himself accepted and approved without reserve” so that “he becomes free to live with others….we are not doing justice to another person when we merely give him whatever he has a right to, we have to accept him as a person and approve of him.”
That is the Kasper/Bergoglio cult. Post-Catholic.
The quotes are from Kasper’s book “Jesus the Christ,” 1976, pp. 85 and 87, promoted by Pope Francis.