Vatican City, Aug 26, 2018 / 07:05 pm (CNA).- Please read below for CNA’s full transcript of the Pope’s Aug. 26 in-flight press conference from Dublin to Rome:
Greg Burke: Holy Father, thanks for this time you’re dedicating to us after two intense days. Certainly, there were difficult moments. In Ireland, there was the matter of abuses, but also very beautiful moments: the Festival of Families, testimonies from families, the meeting with the young couples and the visit to the Capuchins, but maybe you want to say something else first…
Pope Francis: To say thank you, because if I am tired I think of you who have work, work, work… I thank you so much for your effort and your work. Many thanks.
Greg Burke: The first question, as usual, comes from a journalist of the [host] nation which is Tony Connelly, RTE.
Tony Connelly, RTE: Your Holiness, you spoke on Saturday about the meeting you had with the minister for children. You talked about how moved you were by what she said about the mother and baby homes. What exactly did she tell you? Were you shocked because it was the first time you had heard of these homes?
Pope Francis: The minister first told me something that didn’t have too much to do with mother and children (Editor’s note: mother and baby homes). She told me, and she was brief: “Holy Father, we found mass graves of children, buried children, we’re investigating… and the Church has something to do with this.” But she said it very politely and truly with a lot of respect. I thanked her to the point that this had touched my heart. And, this is why I wanted to repeat it in the speech… and it was not at the airport, I was mistaken, it was at the president’s. At the airport, there was another lady minister and I made the mistake there.
But, she told me, “I’ll send you a memo.” She sent me a memo and I haven’t been able to read it yet. I saw it was a memo, that she sent me a memo. She was very balanced in telling me, “There’s an issue, the investigation has not yet finished.” But, she made me understand that the Church has something to do with this. For me, this was an example of constructive collaboration, but also of, I don’t want to say the word “protest” … of complaint, of complaint for that which at one time maybe the Church was of help to do. That lady had a dignity that touched my heart, and now I have the memo there that I will study when I get home.
Greg Burke: Now, another Irishman, exchanging places, which is Paddy Agnew, who is from the Sunday Independent, a resident in Rome but an Irish journalist.
Paddy Agnew, Sunday Independent: Holy Father, thanks and good evening. Yesterday, Marie Collins, an abuse victim that you know well, said that you are not favorable to a new tribunal for Vatican inquiries on the issue of abuses, new inquiries on the problem of sexual abuse, and in particular on a so-called tribunal of inquiry on bishops, bishop accountability. Why do you think this is not necessary?
Pope Francis: (speaking over the last part of the question) No, no, it is not like this. Marie Collins is a bit fixated on the idea that came up. I esteem Marie Collins so much. At times, we call her to give Vatican conferences. She is fixated on the idea, the idea of the “madre amorevole” (editor’s note: The motu proprio, “As a loving mother”), in which it is said that to judge bishops, that it would be good to have a special tribunal. Then, we saw this wasn’t practical and it also wasn’t convenient for the different cultures of the bishops that had to be judged.
You take the recommendations of “madre amorevole” and you make the “giuria” (Editor’s note: a special commission of bishops) for each bishop, but it’s not the same. This bishop is judged and the Pope makes a “giuria” that is more capable of taking that case. It is a thing that works better and also because not all bishops are able to leave their dioceses. It’s not possible.
In this way, the tribunals, the “giurias” change. And that’s what we’ve done up until now. Rather many bishops have been judged. The latest is that of Guam, the Archbishop of Guam, who appealed. And, I decided – because it’s a very difficult case – to take the privilege that I have of taking on the appeal myself and not sending it to the council of appeal that does its work with all the priests. I took it upon myself. And made a commission of canonists that are helping me and they told me that when I get back, after a maximum of a month, a recommendation will be made so I can make a judgment. It is a complicated case, on one hand, but not difficult because the evidence is clear. I cannot pre-judge, I await the report and then I will judge. I say that the evidence is clear because there is this evidence which led the first tribunal to the condemnation.
This is the latest step. Now, there’s another and we’ll see how it ends. But, of course, I told Marie that the spirit and also the recommendation of “as a loving mother” is being done… a bishop is judged by a tribunal, but it isn’t always the same tribunal, as it is not possible. She did not understand that well. But, when I see her, sometimes she comes to the Vatican, I will explain it more clearly. I love her.
Greg Burke: Now, the Italian group. Holy Father, Stefania Falasca from Avvenire is coming.
Stefania Falasca, Avvenire: Good evening, Father.
Pope Francis: Good evening.
Falasca: You said also today that it is always a challenge to welcome migrants and the foreigner. Well, precisely yesterday a painful matter was resolved, that of the Diciotti ship. Is your hoof behind this solution? What was your involvement?
Pope Francis: The paw of the devil.
Falasca: Yes, then the second question: many in Europe see extortion on the backs of these people. What do you think?
Pope Francis: The welcoming of migrants is something as old as the bible. It’s in Deuteronomy, in the Commandments. God commands welcoming the migrant, the foreigner. It’s so old that it is in the spirit of revelation but also in the spirit of Christianity. It’s a moral principle. I spoke about this. Then, I saw that I needed to bit a bit more explicit because it’s not a welcoming with the “Belle etoile,” no! It should be a reasonable welcoming. That’s why Europe is all in this. And when did I realize how this reasonable welcome must be? When there was the terrorist attack in Zaventem (Editor’s note: the Brussels Airport), that that young men, the guerillas that made the attack on Zaventem were Belgians, but sons of migrants, not integrated, from ghettoes! That is, they were received by the country and left there, and they made a ghetto. They were not integrated. Then I remembered when I went to Sweden, and Franca (Editor’s note: Franca Giansoldati, Vatican correspondent for il Messaggero) in an article mentioned this, of how I explicitly made this though and when I went to Sweden, I knew it, I spoke about integration, as it was, because I knew because during the dictatorship in Argentina, from 1976 to 1983, many, many Argentinians and also many Uruguayans escaped to Sweden and there the government would integrate them immediately. It taught them the language, gave them a job and integrated them. To the point that, this is an interesting anecdote, a Minister who came to bid me farewell at the airport in Lund was the daughter of a Swedish and an African immigrant. This African migrant was so integrated to the extent that his daughter became a minister. Sweden was a model. But in that moment Sweden was beginning to have difficulties, not because it did not have the good will for this, but because it didn’t have the possibility of integration. This was the reason for which Sweden stopped for a bit. (After this step of integration) And then, I spoke during the press conference among you about the virtue of prudence, the virtue of the government. I spoke about the prudence of peoples, about the number or the possibility. A people that can receive but does not have the means to integrate [migrants], it’s better not to receive them. There, there is the issue of prudence. And I believe that this is the real core of the dialogue today in the European Union. We must continue to speak. Solutions will be found.
What happened with the Diciotti? I didn’t put my “paw” there. He who did the work with the minister of the interior was Fr. Aldo (Editor’s note: Fr. Aldo Bonaiuto, member of the Association “Giovanni XXIII”), the good Fr. Aldo that continues the work of Fr. Benzi, who the Italians know well, who work of liberating prostitutes, those that are exploited… The Italian Bishops’ Conference also was part. Cardinal Bassetti was there, but at the telephone, he guided everything by way of one of his two under-secretaries, Fr. Maffeis (Fr. Ivan Maffeis, director of communications) negotiated with the minister. And I believe that he went to Albania. Albania, Ireland took a number. Montenegro, I think not. I’m not sure. The others were picked up by the Conference, I don’t know if under the umbrella of the Vatican or not, I don’t know how it was negotiated there, and they’re going to a better world at Rocca di Papa (Editor’s note: an Italian town near Rome). They will be welcomed there. The number I believe that it is more than 100 and there they will begin to learn the language and to do that work that is done with integrated migrants. I’ve had an experience that was very gratifying for me. When I went to Roma Tre (University), there were students that wanted to ask me questions and I saw a student that “I know this face.” (Nour Essa, see story here, editor note), and it was one that had come with me among the 13 I brought back from Lesbos. And that girl was at the university because Sant’Egidio from the day after at school, to study, had integrated her at a university level. This is the work with migrants. There is an openness of heart for everyone, suffering, then integration as a condition for welcoming and then the prudence of those who govern for doing this. I have seen a clandestinely made film of the things that happen to those who are sent back. They are taken by the traffickers. Painful, the things that they do to the men… the women and the children, out! They sell them. But to the men, they do the most sophisticated torture. There was one there that was capable, a spy, of making that film that I sent to my two under-secretaries for immigration (Editor’s note: Fr. Michael Czerny and Fr. Fabio Baggio, undersecretaries of the Migrants and Refugees Section). For this, to send them back you have to think well. Then, one last thing: there are these migrants that come, but there are also those who are tricked at Fiumicino. They are tricked. “We give you work, they give you documents.” And they end up on the sidewalk enslaved, under threat from traffickers of women. That’s it.
Greg Burke: Thanks, Holiness. Let’s go to the question from the English-speaking group. Anna Matranga from the American television, CBS.
Anna Matranga, CBS: Good evening, Holy Father. I’ll return to the subject of sex abuse about which you’ve already spoken. This morning, very early, a document by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano’ came out. In it, he says that in 2013 he had a personal talk with you at the Vatican, and that in that talk, he spoke to you explicitly of the behavior of and the sexual abuse by former-Cardinal McCarrick. I wanted to ask you if this was true. I also wanted to ask something else: the Archbishop also said that Pope Benedict sanctioned McCarrick, that he had forbidden him to live in a seminary, to celebrate Mass in public, he couldn’t travel, he was sanctioned by the Church. May I ask you whether these two things are true?
Pope Francis: I will respond to your question, but I would prefer last first we speak about the trip, and then other topics. I was distracted by Stefania, but I will respond.
I read the statement this morning, and I must tell you sincerely that, I must say this, to you and all those who are interested. Read the statement carefully and make your own judgment. I will not say a single word about this. I believe the statement speaks for itself. And you have the journalistic capacity to draw your own conclusions. It’s an act of faith. When some time passes and you have drawn your conclusions, I may speak. But, I would like your professional maturity to do the work for you. It will be good for you. That’s good. (inaudible)
Matranga: Marie Collins said that after she met you during the victims gathering, that she spoke with you precisely about ex-Cardinal McCarrick. She said you were very tough in your condemnation of McCarrick. I want to ask you, when was the first time that you heard talk about the abuses committed the former cardinal?
Pope Francis: This is part of the statement about McCarrick. Study it and then I will say. Yesterday, I had not read it but I permitted myself to speak clearly with Marie Collins and the group, it was really an hour-and-a-half, something which made me suffer a lot. But, I believe it was necessary to listen to these 8 people and from this meeting came the proposal. I made it, the others accepted and they helped me to do it, to ask forgiveness today in the Mass. But, in concrete things. The last thing. I had never heard about those mothers, they called it the women’s laundry, when an unmarried woman got pregnant she went to the hospital, I don’t know what the school was called, and the sisters said that and then they gave the child away in adoption to people. There were two sons from that time, they tried to find their mothers, if they were alive. And they would tell them that it was a mortal sin to do this, and to the mothers who called for their children also it was a mortal sin. For this reason, today I finished by saying that this is not a mortal sin but it’s the fourth commandment. And the things that I said today some I didn’t know (before). It was painful for me but I also had the consolation of being able to help clear these things up. I await your comment on the document, I would like that. Thanks.
Greg Burke: Thanks, Holy Father. Now, Cecile Chambraud of Le Monde.
Cecile Chambraud, Le Monde: Good evening, Holy Father. I hope you don’t mind if I pose my question in Spanish. I ask you to reply in Italian for all of the colleagues. In your speech in Ireland, you refer to your recent letter to the people of God. In that letter, you call all Catholics to take part in the fight against abuses in the Church. Can you provide details for us what concretely Catholics can do each in their place to fight against these abuses and on this theme, in France, a priest has started a petition for the removal of Cardinal Barbarin accused by victims. Does this initiative appear adequate to you or not?
Pope Francis: If there are suspicions, proofs or half-proofs, I do not see anything bad in making an investigation, but always that is done according to the fundamental juridical principal of “nemo malus nisi probetur” – No one is evil until it is proven. But many times there is the temptation not just to do the investigation but to publish that there is an investigation and why he’s culpable and so some media – not yours, I don’t know yours – to create a climate of culpability. I will tell you something that happened to me in these days that can help with this… because for me it is important how you proceed, how the media can help. Three years ago, more or less, the problem of the so-called “pedophile priests” started in Granada, involving 7, 8 or 10 priests accused of abuse of minors and of having festival or orgies and this kind of thing.
I received the accusation myself, directly, a letter made by a young 23-year old, according to him he was abused, he gave his name and everything, a young man who was working in a prestigious college of Granada, and the letter was perfect. And he asked me what to do to report this. I told him to go to the archbishop of Granada and tell him this, and the archbishop will know what to do. He did, and the archbishop did all that he should do. Then it also went to the civil tribunal and so there were two processes. But then the local media began to speak and speak (about this), and three days later, they wrote “in the parish, three pedophile priests” and so on, and in this way the consciousness was formed that the priests were criminals.
Seven were interrogated and nothing was found. On three, the investigation went ahead and they stayed in jail, for five days, two of them and one, Fr. Romani, the parish priest, was in for 7 days. For almost three years and more, they suffered hate, slaps from the whole town… “criminals!” They couldn’t go outside. They suffered humiliations made by the “giuria” declared to prove the accusations of the boy, that I don’t dare repeat here. After three years, meanwhile, the “giuria” declares the priests innocent, all innocent, but most of all these three, the others were already out of the case and the accuser was then denounced because it was seen that he had a vivid imagination. He was very intelligent and he worked in a Catholic college, he had this prestige and gave the impression of telling the truth.
He was condemned and had to pay the expenses. These men (the priests) were condemned by the local media before justice was done. For this reason, your work is very important, you must accompany the investigation but there must be the presumption of innocence, not with the legal presumption of culpability. There is a difference between the informer who provides information on a case, who isn’t playing for a foreseen condemnation, and the one who investigates, who acts like Sherlock Holmes and presumes that everyone is guilty, When we read the technique of Hercules Poirot, for him everyone was guilty, but this is the work of the investigator. They are two very different positions: but those who inform must start from the presumption of innocence, but saying their admirations, but this is a bit special, but why, to say doubts, but without making condemnations. This case that happened in Granada for me is an example that it will do us all good in our work.
Greg Burke: In the first part, you asked what could the people of God do about the issue…
Pope Francis: When you see something, speak immediately. I will say another thing that’s a little nasty: many times there are parents that cover up the abuse of a priest. Many times. You see it in the condemnation. “No, but…” they don’t believe… They are convinced that it’s not true and the boy or the girl remain like that. I by method receive every week one or two, but it’s not mathematical. And I’ve received a person, a woman, that for 40 years suffered this scourge of silence because her parents didn’t believe: she was abused at 8 years old. Speak! This is important. It’s true that for a mother to see it is better that it wasn’t, seeks that the child maybe is dreaming… speak! And speak with the right people, speak with those who can start a judgment, at least an preliminary investigation. Speak with a judge, with the bishop and if the parish priest is good speak with the parish priest, this is the first thing the people of God can do, this should not be covered up. A psychiatrist told me time ago, but I don’t want that this be an offense for the women, that for sense of maternity, women are more inclined to cover the things of the child than men. But I don’t know if it’s true, but… speak!
Greg Burke: Holy Father, we’re moving… the Spanish group. There’s Javier Romero, of Rome Reports.
Javier Romero, Rome Reports: Holiness, excuse me but I’d like to pose two questions. The first is the that the Prime Minister of Ireland, who was very direct in his speech, is proud of the new model of family different from that which traditionally the Church has proposed up until now: I mean homosexual marriage. And this is perhaps one of the models that generates more battles, and I thought in the case especially of a Catholic family , when there is a person of this family that declares themselves to be homosexual. Holiness, the first question that I’d like to pose you is: what do you think, what would you say to a father whose son says he is homosexual, that he would like to go live with his… this is the first question. And the second that you also in your speech to the Prime Minister spoke about abortion, and we saw how Ireland has changed so much in recent years and that it seems that the Minister was satisfied at these changes. One of these changes was abortion, and we saw that in recent months, in recent years abortion has come out in many countries, Argentina among others, your country. How do you feel when you see this is an issue of which you speak often and that in many countries it’s put in…
Pope Francis: Alright. I’ll begin from the second, but there are two points. Thanks for this. There are two points that are connected to the matter that we’re speaking about, on abortion you know what is thought. The problem of abortion is not religious. We are not against abortion for religion, no! It’s a human problem and it should be studied anthropologically. To study abortion, beginning with the religious fact is to skip over thought. The problem of abortion should be studied anthropologically. There is always the anthropological problem of the ethics of eliminating a human being to resolve a problem. But this is already to enter into the discussion. I just want to underscore this: I will never allow that the discussion on abortion begins on the religious fact. No, it’s an anthropological problem, it’s a human problem. This is my thinking.
Second. There have always been homosexuals, people with homosexual tendencies. Always. Sociologists say, I don’t know if it’s true, that in times of epochal changes, some social, ethical phenomena increase; one of them would be this. This is an opinion of some sociologists. Your question is clear: what would I say to a father who sees that his son or daughter has that tendency? I would say first to pray, pray! Don’t condemn. Dialogue, understand, make space for son and the daughter. Make space so they can express themselves.
Then, at what age does this restlessness of the child express itself? It’s important. One thing is when it shows itself in a child. There are many things to do with psychiatry, to see how things are. Another thing is when it manifests itself after 20 years of age… But I’ll never say that silence is a remedy. To ignore a son or daughter with homosexual tendencies is a lack of paternity and maternity. You are my son, you are my daughter as you are! I’m your father, mother. Let’s talk! And if you, father and mother aren’t up to it, ask for help, but always in dialogue because that son and that daughter have the right to a family and that family of not being chased out of the family. This is a serious challenge, but that makes paternity and maternity. Thank you for the question! Thanks!
Greg Burke: Thanks to you, Holy Father.
Pope Francis: And then I would like to say something for the Irish that are here. I found so much faith in Ireland. So much faith. It’s true, the Irish people have suffered for the scandals. So much. But there is faith in Ireland. It’s strong. And also the Irish people know how to distinguish. And I cite what today I heard from a prelate: the Irish people know how to distinguish well between the truth and half-truths. It is something that they have within. It’s true that it’s in a process of elaboration, of healing from these scandals. It’s true that positions are being opened that seem to distance themselves from any faith. But the Irish people have a deep rooted faith. I want to say it because it’s what I’ve seen, what I’ve heard, of which in these two days I’ve been informed. Thanks for you work. Thanks a lot. And pray for me please.
Greg Burke: Thanks to you. Have a good dinner. Rest well!
[…]
“His willingness to go off script or speak without one has been challenging and often refreshing:”
I’ve yet to see an instance in which it was refreshing.
That is understandble. It’s hard to find the putrid refreshing.
My first thought as well. I would add that Francis needs to take a lesson from Shakespeare’s Henry V. Have a good time while a prince (bishop of Argentina?), but once Pope chose who you associate with FOR THE SAKE OF THE KINGDOM. You are not free anymore to hobnob with “flakes” and give them access to what is sacred for their own use or misuse.
IV. Hell
1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: “He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.”610 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.611 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”
1034 Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.612 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,”613 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!”614
1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.”615 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”616
Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where “men will weep and gnash their teeth.”617
1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;618 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:619
There is the teaching of Our Holy Father Pope Francis.
Why are we letting ourselves be blown here and there?. When the Holy Father seems to contradict Tradition, Just take no notice, and let the collage of cardinals deal with the problem.
We already know the Great Slander Mechanism’s tactics.
What’s perennially, and disappointingly eye-opening, is how many “catholics” react to its lies and innuendoes, and how readily and lustily they do so.
“Hosanna! Crucify Him!”
The Pontiff should give serious consideration to entering into a life of contemplative prayer and reparation.
Let’s be perfectly honest here, Pope Francis has a communication problem and this is not the first. One of the more glaring gaffs he has made is stating in the recent past that the crucifixion was a failure. Now we can all dance around that statement and inject our own “this is not what he meant”, but he does not follow up such statements to put his comment into context and then we have to deal with the fall out. Perhaps he needs to not do interviews or answer direct questions and just release statements through the Vatican.
A communication problem or a spiritual one?
I can’t believe people have not caught on yet. It is likely that Pope Francis told Scalfari that there was no hell. The fact that he said at other places and times that their IS a hell does not matter. What the Pope says changes from time to time. If Scalfari found it a stumbling block to believe in hell, then the Pope would have no trouble telling him there is no hell. The Pope was “accompanying” Scalfari, trying to move him closer to the church. If this involved the POPE denying or altering doctrine, then so be it. When Scalfari is ready to accept the idea of hell, the Pope will re-introduce it. It will appear again. What we just saw was the Pope’s idea of how to lead someone into the church. You deny or alter doctrine, if necessary. Then, when the person has accepted the fundamentals, you move the goalposts again, hell re-appears, and Voila! Now, the critical thing is that the POPE is endorsing this approach. Truth is situationally relative for the Pope, and he will say whatever he needs to say to get to his goal. He is flexible. Doctrine does not matter. So Germans want to give communion to divorced and remarried and bless gay marriage. Who cares? Not the Pope. So maybe Jesus did not rise from the dead. Who cares? Not the Pope.
Except for the last three sentences, I would have framed this post of yours and triple matted it in navaho white. We agreed on good Friday about something.
“You deny or alter doctrine, if necessary.”
You do realize you’re saying that one should lie–give false advertisement–in order to win people to the Truth. Sorry. That is not Catholic.
We are called to preach the truth in season and out.
Lying at the outset establishes one as an untrustworthy source who will be castigated later for their double tongue.
What he was saying is that is what is happening, not that he advocates doing it. It seems that he disapproves of it as strongly as you do, if not more so.
This a very perceptive and profound reflection,samton909. It rings most true. As Pope Pius XII said in his last words on his deathbed: “Pray, pray, pray for the Church in this most terrible time”.
All that matters is that you try to reduce your use of the electric fan.
The flaw in your logic samton909 (and it shows everyone here you likely NEVER ever debated a Unitarian Universalist or a Jehovah’s Witness in your life. I have BTW) is people who deny Hell do so because they erroneously believe it makes God look less merciful so they substitute “merciless eternal Hell” with “God saves everyone” and or “God painlessly blots bad people out of existence” heresies (thought 7th day Adventists believe mortal sinners will suffer actual pain in a temporary Hell for a time before annihilation).
Pope Francis is all about “mercy” so why would he deny this doctrine and continue to mercilessly teach it? If he never taught the existence of Hell in public or mentioned the Devil that would make this story seem credible. But the evidence says otherwise.
This is not a new claim by Scalfari. He made it about Pope Francis before and between that time and now the Pope has openly taught about Hell. This gives him more then enough plausible deniability and it is an offense against charity to speculate on what you think are the Pope’s motives. It also detracts from valid criticism that Pope Francis should do more to correct confusion and not cause confusion.
Two wrongs don’t make a right & you cannot do good by doing evil. You are better then this..
Stick with criticizing the Pope’s actions (or lack there of) and don’t cause scandal with your unsubstanciated conspiracy theories. Again you are better then that.
Jean Paul Sartre said I think in “Being and Nothingness” or in the biography of Jean Genet that a man in bad faith believes what he does not believe and does not believe in what he believes.
In the severity of God area, Pope Francis has that problem. He is mercurial on hell so it is Catholic mascara application ( rampant on the net) to only cite his moments of affirming hell without quoting him on Judas and within AL….
Paragraph 297, AL: “No one is condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!”
Aboard the papal plane, Oct 2, 2016 / 06:08 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- During his flight from Baku, Azerbaijan to Rome on Sunday, Pope Francis:
“Mercy has the last word. I like to tell, I do not know if I told you, because I repeat it so much … in the Church of Santa Maria Maddalena – I told you or no? – There is a beautiful capital, but it is more or less from the thirteenth century. Medieval cathedrals were catechesis with sculptures. And in a part of the capital there is Judas hanged with his tongue out and eyes (bulging) out, and on the other side of the capital there is Jesus the Good Shepherd who takes (Judas) and carries him with him. And if you look closely, the face of Jesus, the lips of Jesus are sad on the one hand, but with a small smile of understanding in the other. They understood what mercy is … with Judas, huh! “
This is Balthasarian theology. It has been embraced informally for a while now. I love and respect IP, but it has been part of this whole strange discussion. Consistently. We can hope no one is damned. IOW, we can hope Hell is an empty threat. Which could also be explained as “There is no Hell.” As an aside, otherwise very orthodox Protestants have said the same thing, the evangelical John Stott for instance. I am not sure what is more disturbing: the Pope’s reticence to teach clearly, or all the people scampering to insist Francis is Very Orthodox. This column insists the Pope believes in Hell. Come on. Who is very confident they know what Francis really believes about anything unless it title liberal? Not me.
Joe M Christians hope for the salvation of all, which is not of itself audacity and similarly accept by faith what scripture already confirms that not all will be saved. If von Balthazar had hope of salvation of all yet claimed belief in scriptural pronouncements on condemnation why does he justify his query in his book Dare We Hope that All Men Be Saved on the premise “We’re all under judgment” if not understood as possible salvation for all and to establish a possibility based not on hope but on scripture. Von Balthazar provided the premise not based on faith and scripture but presumption followed by many today that there is no eternal Hell.
Amen…see Christ below in Luke….Amen and thank you.
While I am on a roll. Fr. Morello if you will indulge me.
>Christians hope for the salvation of all, which is not of itself audacity and similarly accept by faith what scripture already confirms that not all will be saved.
Whose interpretation of Scripture? We don’t confess Luther’s perspecuity errors regarding Holy Writ?
As far as I know the Church has never said anyone is in Hell but the Devil and the fallen angels via the extra -ordinary magestarium.
>If von Balthazar had hope of salvation of all yet claimed belief in scriptural pronouncements on condemnation why does he justify his query in his book Dare We Hope that All Men Be Saved on the premise “We’re all under judgment” if not understood as possible salvation for all and to establish a possibility based not on hope but on scripture.
Father if Protestantism has taught us anything it is you can justify anything from scripture. Which is why we need the Church to rule on matters of doctrine. Cardinal Dulles said he didn’t find Balthazar’s views contrary to the faith since unlike true universalism which denies hell altogether Balthazar allows for the real potential for souls to go to Hell.
>Von Balthazar provided the premise not based on faith and scripture but presumption followed by many today that there is no eternal Hell.
No, an honest reading of his theology shows he does teach being damned is a real possibility for everyone even if in the end everyone is somehow saved. Or should we deny the Catholic doctrine of sufficient grace being truly sufficient in favor of Calvinism?
Like I said elsewhere the heresy of universalism teaches damnation is absolutely impossible. Balthazar teaches damnation is truly possible for individuals. Thus one should hope for the salvation of all and still fear the damnation of themselves and other individuals.
PS. I personally don’t think everyone is going to be saved FYI. But it could happen. OTOH maybe everyone will be saved but me so I should listen to the wife and say more Rosaries.
Cheers.
That whole movement contradicts Christ:
Luke 13:24 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
24 “Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able.”
It’s based on the epistle saying of God…” who desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth”. Aquinas in the Summa T. noted that this refers to the antecedent willing of God ( before we act) not His consequent willing ( after we act ) and of that former willing Aquinas noted…” but the antecedent will of God does not always take place”…..” but the will of God simply always does take place” ( the final over arching willing ).
Read Aquinas on the will of God but have a Bacardi Black with pineapple juice not far away…not very far away at all….word.
Bannon you deserve an A+ rating for your comment on antecedent and consequent will in God. Have one of those suggested concoctions on me.
I already had two Jack Daniel’s double mellowed Tennessee whisky’s today….you have to buy it Father…whiskey without the brutality and a finish so long that it’s like me talking about the death penalty…that’s how long it lingers. Ask for Gentleman Jack….small if you’re on budget…750ml is $29-$36….depending on where but it comes smaller.
Not me, either, Joe M
Balthasarian pseudo-Universalism is different from heterodox Universalism in that it affirms people have the real potential to go too Hell. True heterodox Universalism takes away any fear of Hell under this pseudo version of it the fear remains. Indeed given the premises of Balthasarian theology I seen no reason why it is not possible for everyone to be saved BUT ME if I persist in sin? So I can hope for everyone else & have a healthy fear for myself…
Pope Francis’ obsession with mercy and forgiveness, his “devil” talk and simultaneous denial of Hell is itself symptomatic of cognitive dissonance and an emotional imbalance, as is his compulsion to do repeat performances with Scalfari which always end up the same way. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is terrified of Hell and Satan and he should be. We all should have a healthy fear of that reality. But I sense in him an unhealthy fear – so what better course than to deny it.
Born in the thirties he is likely afflicted by unresolved scrupulousness – a spiritual malady not so familiar to those born after the Council. It is a painful obsessive-compulsive preoccupation with personal sin and many found relief from it in the absurdities of the “spirit” of Vatican II. That same “spirit” has become their new obsession because it represents their “release” from the neurotic cycle which subsumed their emotional and spiritual lives. A concurrent reaction against what is perceived as “rigidity” would seem to be reasonable in such a personality.
But unless you deal with the root problem within yourself and in the light of Grace the neurotic cycle just morphs into another neurotic cycle. Unfortunately all of us, and indeed history, are witness to it playing out in him and the overcompensation of the multiple cases in his cabal.
Apparently his antiquity and the trappings of the office have ignited within him the idea that he is a genuine wisdom figure.
He is rather more frequently appearing a basket case.
His need to speak with this bizarre atheist Scalfari is absurd.
He is a dangerous obstacle to his own salvation and that of others.
“The Holy Spirit was not given to the Roman Pontiffs so that they might disclose new doctrine, but so that they might guard and set forth the Deposit of Faith handed down from the Apostles.”
– Pastor Aeternus, July 18, 1870.
He needs to absent himself.
Very interesting analysis James. It could also be applied to Luther (with little modification). It is no surprise that Pope Francis echoes Luther’s teachings.
The Vatican did not say that Francis did not say this, only that the quote is not fully correct… they did not say Francis affirms hell, but a hell where souls go until the Parousia and then both he’ll and the souls, damned spirits, all disappear….
BINGO! Anyone still insisting this Pope remotely believes in Catholicism is either a liar or an idiot.
Option 2?
You mean Pope Francis does not believe in the immortality of the human soul?
BTW, Pope John XXII in the 14th century also believed that Heaven (Beatific Vision) can only be attained by good souls at the end of the world, i.e., after the Last Judgement. John XXII was condemned for this heresy, which (come to think of it) is just the other side of Pope Francis’ coin of hell by annihilation.
Marietta: You mean Pope Francis does not believe in the immortality of the human soul?
Well it seems not quite. It goes like this: some souls are immortal others are not. It’s anyone guess which souls are one or the other.
Or more correctly: hell for those who he dislikes and heaven for his cohorts.
People who have known Bergoglio for several decades describe him as a “Peronist,” in the sense that he tells individuals and whole crowds what they want to hear. He seems incapable of controlling himself when there is applause to be had. He would, as Archbishop, give a rip-roaring pro-life speech in the morning, and a rip-roaring radical feminist speech in the afternoon.
There are several quite profound, high-quality comments already on this thread–the exceptions being the same-old same-old “victim of bad communication” excuses. The truth–the real truth–is to be seen in the fact that being a Catholic is the kiss of death in Bergoglio’s Vatican, while being a boodler and/or a notorious homosexual seems to be the ticket to high office and power.
It does seem, though, that this is the pontificate of mixed and sometimes contradictory messages. Isn’t this what we see in his great concern for the poor while at the same time he criticizes all but the most statist and oppressive of economic systems? And there is the insistance of his team that Amoris Laetitia is in perfect harmony with the teaching of previous popes while interpretations of AL irreconcilably opposed to the teaching of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI are tolerated or receive encouragement from Rome. So I would not be surprised in the least if Pope Francis says one thing about Hell on Tuesday and something entirely different on Wednesday.
In all honesty, I wouldn’t be surprised at this point if he proclaimed himself to be Emperor of Japan.
As a methodology-for it is not, itself, doctrine – *Doctrinal Development” needs to be put out to pasture for a serious rethink. Catholic dissidents (whom Francis encourages, and nurtures within himself) have mangled the concept into uselessness.
I am sorry, but I have to react viscerally here. Pope Francis believes in Hell? How so? You don’t get that impression form his overall agenda. And we all know that in the postconciliar Church, theological terms ,mean little if anything. “Inerrancy”… huh, what? “No salvation outside the Church”… duck, or the explain-away will hit you in the as-. The bottom line is the ambiguity and the desire to accommodate is coming home to roost. We wither know what we believe, or we are Unitarians with a Jesus- and a liturgy-fixation. You can’t be Catholic like that identity has been understood for years on these shores and also embrace the sucker punches of this elderly Argentine’s shock papacy. At some point someone has to pull the curtain on the wizard. YEs, he’s pope. And yes, he also seems heterodox. Unless the definition of orthodoxy is up for grabs. Which it IS, of James Martin and Michael Sean Winters would have received a smack down. They have not.
Even if I am typo-afflicted!
When you can’t look to the Pope for guidance on Hell, Heaven, or Sex and Marriage, it’s time to tune out the Pope. Not Catholicism, but its political head. And thank God that He will not let him formally declare falsehoods, even if the man stuffs his homilies with ambiguities. As for giving allegiance to the everyday Magisterium, well, I think that may be as fuzzy an obligation as the one involved in this whole communion for the divorced thing! I assume that’s OK. Further muddying the waters, I am now praying that this Pope resigns. And thus feeling very in communion with both this Pope and the last!!
I believe in hell – that’s where your immortal soul goes if you die in a state of mortal sin. For my sake – that’s really all that matters.
If you need some prep work you go to purgatory, if you’re ready you go to Paradise.
Forever
Forever
Forever
Scalfari looks an awful like the late George C. Scott.
Serving humanity and the Planet in all humility – could be one of the many ways to heaven.
Serving “The Planet” is serving a false god.
“And the Planet” with a capital P.
What religion might this be?
Strange, I thought thatservice first and foremost is to God. But then maybe the planet is god for some.
If i am correct, the Vatican did NOT deny that the pope said what he was reported to have said, they simply advised that it may not be what he said… what they used to call a non denial denial. And of course the pope refuses to ‘correct’ the record because he is so far above that sort of thing and we’re all just pharisees or rigorists or neo-palegians or whatever for wondering anyway. What does the pope believe? Who knows? We do know that he is either the most careless man to hold the office, or the most cunning.
Please, dear author, open your eyes.
The pope has no sense of responsibility deliver clarity to his flock. Francis knows what Scalfari does with his words. That he should grant this man yet another interview is nauseating. Francis has not and will not make a clear rebuttal to Scalfari’s words. This is not rocket science. It is only common sense to see what is happening here.
I do not trust Francis. It grieves me to say this about any pope.
Does his denial of hell make him a material heretic?
Pope John XXII denied the Beatific Vision to a good person newly dead. He claimed Heaven is attained only at the end of history, i.e., after the Last Judgement. John XXII was condemned as a heretic.
To Chris Altieri’s point Pope Francis has affirmed the existence of Hell. Neither can we confirm what atheist journalist Scalfari says regarding Pope Francis’ remarks. Reputable journalists note however the faith damaging issue of ambiguity. For example Greg Burke his spokesman simply says Scalfari misquoted his exact words, which is itself ambiguous. Also true to his ambiguous modus operandi it was reported by Edward Pentin Nat Catholic Reg 3.29.18 that regarding Scalfari “The Pope’s comments on this occasion are questionable as they are at odds with previous statements in which he has spoken of Hell’s existence, most recently last week when he appealed to the mafia to ‘give up their lives of crime and avoid eternal damnation.’” But Pentin added “Francis has also given signals to the contrary, preaching last year that ‘everything will be saved — everything’ and that at the end of history there will be an ‘immense tent, where God will welcome all mankind so as to dwell with them definitively’”. As a matter of justice to the Church the Roman Pontiff is obliged to repudiate heresy and clarify truth. At best he is misquoted and careless. At worst he seems to purposely couch what he really believes ambiguously so as to promote heresy obliquely.
Try raising teenage children in the Faith under these conditions. This is appalling and deliberate and it’s time the hierarchy put a stop to it by removing him from office.
Fr. Morello,
Here are the Pope’s actual words.
“If we remain united to Jesus, the cold of difficult moments does not paralyse us; and if even the whole world were to preach against hope, if it said that the future will bring only dark clouds, the Christian knows that in that same future there is the return of Christ. When this will happen, no-one knows, but the thought that at the end of our history there is the merciful Jesus is enough to have confidence and not to curse life. Everything will be saved. Everything. We will suffer, there will be moments that cause anger and indignation, but the gentle and potent memory of Christ will eliminate the temptation to think that this life is a mistake.”END QUOTE
He is not talking about the salvation of everyone(since when are people things?)
he is talking about people who “remain united to Jesus”.
It is also obvious he is making a reference to Romans 8:19-25 & 1 Corinthians 15:26-28 the later I will quote.
1 Corinthians 15:26-28 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. [27] “For God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection under him,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him. [28] When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.
[Pope Francis cited part of 15:28 in the General Audience address from which the quote is taken, and also the “return of Christ”: when these wonderful things regarding all of creation will occur]
To get the idea out of this he hold to heterodox universalism views is dishonest.
The Pope may deserve just criticism but that never authorizes his would be critics to themselve criticize unjustly.
“simple as doves” or “gentle as doves”?
It has been translated both ways. Mr. Altieri is using the RSV translation.
The Vatican clarification doesn’t really say what Francis believes, it only says that Scalfari’s recollection doesn’t contain Francis’ precise words. This hardly seems to be a denial of the substance of what may have been said. At any rate, this is all very confusing.
Just saying, on Holy Saturday:
https://mobile.twitter.com/EOrthodoxy/status/980163117433982977
I’ve attended very good churches in the Roman Catholic Church that recognize the Pope and I’ve done so for almost three decades. My own father is a sedevacantist. When we discuss things and are in agreement or I affirm something he’s saying, it’s an affirmation of his faith which is predicated on the denial my faith. Never mind that the former Mass was unable to fend off the Reformation, the French Revolution, American Revolution, the Rights of Man, Communism and multiple coups against Catholic governments in the 19th and 20th centuries, nor the sexual revolution, somehow, through an ahistorical fantasy, all this would be fixed if everyone went back the same mass that was overwhelmed by the same revolutions of selfism. Though my father is elderly, the impossibility of the relationship has undermined all filial and familial values. It’s been a long painful and ruinous relationship.
Our current Pope is indulging in something similar, where even though he is’t speaking consistently, he’s always right and everyone else is always wrong. It’s reached a point where one really has to ask oneself, who needs persecution, chaos and subversion when it’s coming from the Church itself? Again, we await clarity. Why are we awaiting clarity if we are only going to be told it’s our fault for not being generous and merciful enough. Because one is willing to be humble, it doesn’t mean they’re going to buy into things that don’t add up, especially when such follows a pattern of you lose, I win.
I pay him little mind. I see Pope Francis as the result of the permissive willing of God…punishment for a church that over praised his predecessors. A real great Pope would have sent our sex criminals to the police and jail pronto …in 1986 tops…the way Christ took two minutes cleaning the temple. Instead…it was the slow, wise movements….of the wise Church….yeah..right. It was conspiracy theories in his head that 26 countries had false accusers. So God gave us a Pope…Francis…who is impossible to call great…even by his admirers. He grates on nerves. God is punning us as punishment.
Your dad probably agrees with you alot when you leave. There was a book out of Harvard…” Getting to Yes”….which said once a person makes a definite assertion in a public forum, they won’t retract it in public….their ego is at stake. After you drive off, your dad may in his head agree with you. Go on strike as to discussing religion. He might fear its the only reason he is interesting to you. Show him there are other things in which he is interesting. Don’t react at all to bait he gives you on the Church topic.
Thank you Bill Bannon. Your advise makes sense and I appreciate it. I will give it a go.
He is punishment alright, for our sins.
It doesn’t seem Francis believed Our Lord’s words about adultery and remarriage and therefore, it’s not far fetched to think he may not believe Our Lord’s words about Hell.
Remember he wrote magisterially, “no one is condemn (to Hell) forever, it is contrary to the Logic of God,” ‘they simply disappear’…” see AL
We get what we want and deserve: when Antichrist appears he will be an outstanding hit.
When he is in effect teaching (whether deliberately or through lack of caution and good sense) billions through his journalist friend that Hell does not exist, it is immaterial what he personally believes, or what his evangelical strategy might be in making such comments. It is false and heretical teaching. It immediately paves the way for the world, the flesh and the devil to work their will.
There is little doubt that people inspired by this teaching already have gone to their eternal doom on the wings of this teaching. For example, the suicide who had his courage buoyed and his mind relieved of apprehension. What a relief for a potential suicide in the face of his suffering and lack of hope just to disappear,a choice pursued with papal reassurance. This pope has to go, and it seems perfectly legitimate to pray that the Lord will take him out of the way one way or another.
Who am I to judge?
Some, here, may not care for Antonio Socci (and Google Translate does a miserable job with his Facebook post), but he does have a point or two.
There was one phrase which caught my attention. It nicely sums up the cultural/political (maybe doctrinal) working out of Francis’ papacy – “double magisterial track” . As they say, much within to unpack.
A turn of phrase which even Google Translator couldn’t mangle.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.antoniosocci.com%2Funa-sollevazione-di-cardinali-ha-fermato-per-ora-leresia-bergogliana-sullinferno-la-smentita-farlocca-e-il-rischio-impeachment%2F&edit-text=
IMHO It was the wording of the clarification that was most distressing to me, the only thing it said was that the pope’s exact words were not used. Besides, given whatever the pope has said, who can really say what he believes? I know I am less certain every day as to his Catholic Faith because he has been and continues to be deliberately vague to the point that even Cardinals are not sure, let alone literate, rational, members of the laity. Besides this, it is widely reported that the head of the Jesuits does not believe there is a devil, Satan. Now if such a dolt can remain in office under a Jesuit brother, what does that say? Francis is not truthful and forthright in my estimation and he wilds power like a mobster. These are onky my opinions, I could be all wrong, I hope I am.
When somebody appears ambivalent, with rare exceptions they seem to truly hold the more contradicty view, otherwise why not strongly affirm the orthodox position?
And why can the pope not answer the questions of his own ”Easter visit” with an enemy of Christ?
I liked the article, but the last few lines irked me. Generally speaking, why is the papacy incompatible with following the example of the Good Shepherd in going out in search of the lost sheep? I think the author is guilty of rhetorical excess here.
It seems like a lot of people are mad at the idea that most of the rest of the world won’t be suffering in extreme torture whilst you and your cohort are highly privileged.
Seems like this issue is a litmus test of Jesus to separate the people who really care about others from the rest.
Conditionalists also believe in hell. But they believe in the biblical view of hell: It is a second death.