
Vatican City, Jun 21, 2018 / 04:29 pm (CNA).- In a June 21 conversation with journalists on the way back from a trip to Geneva, Pope Francis touched on an array of topics, including ecumenism, intercommunion, peace and just war, and refugees.
Please read below for CNA’s full transcript of the Pope’s inflight press conference:
Greg Burke:
Thank you, Your Holiness… we wait a second, here we go… perfect! Thank you in the meantime. To journey, to pray, to work together… we have walked, we have prayed also, at various times, and now we touch on work a little, even to eat after, so that it is seen that to journey together brings fruit.
Today the welcoming- we have seen, after many speeches that it is the mutual respect and it is something more, it is also friendship. However, there is still so much work to do and so many challenges and this interests us normally, the challenges… so, to you journalists… but, if you want to say something first [Holy Father]?
Pope Francis:
Thank you for your work, the day was a little heavy, at least for me… but I am content, I am content [ed. note: or ‘happy’] because the various things that we have done — that is, the prayers to begin, then the speech during lunch it was the most beautiful, then the academic meeting, and then the Mass, they are things that have made me happy… The tiring but beautiful things! Thank you so much! Now I am available to you.
Greg Burke:
Good. We begin with the Swiss. (Arnaud Bedat of L’Illustre magazine)
Bedat:
Holy Father, you have been in Geneva, but also in Switzerland. What are the images and what are the strong, important moments that had an impact on you during this day?
Pope Francis:
Repeat for me.
Bedat:
(repeated)
Pope Francis:
I believe that it is a common word: encounter. It was a day of varied encounters. The right word of the day is ‘encounter,’ and when a person encounters another and feels appreciation for the meeting, this always touches the heart, no? They were positive meetings, good even, beginning with the dialogue with the president at the beginning; it was not a speech of courtesy, as usual… [it was] a deep speech on the profound world debates and [spoken by him] with an intelligence… that I remain astonished, beginning from that.
Then the meetings that you all saw, and that which you did not see is the meeting at lunch, that was very profound [or deep] in the way it touched on many debates, mabe the debate we spent the most time on is “the youth.” Because even all of the churches are concerned, in the good sense, for the youth and the pre-synod that occurred in Rome from March 19 and then attracted enough attention, because there were youth of all [different] beliefs, even agnostics and of all the countries. Think, 315 youth there and 15,000 connected [ed note: via Facebook] that they entered and exited and this perhaps awakened a special interest.
But the word that came to me maybe the whole trip is that it was a voyage of ‘encounter.’ Maybe… I don’t know… an experience of encounter… no rudeness, nothing entirely formal. A human encounter. And this… between Protestants, Catholics and all [people] it says a lot, eh!
Greg Burke:
Thanks, Holiness. Now the German group. Roland Juchem of the German Catholic CIC Agency is here.
Roland Juchem:
Thanks, Holy Father. You speak often of concrete steps toward ecumenism. Today, for example, you again referred to that, saying “Let’s see what is possible to do concretely rather than getting discouraged for what isn’t.”
The German bishops recently have decided to take a step and so we ask ourselves why Archbishop Ladaria wrote a letter that seems like an “emergency brake.” After the meeting May 3, it was affirmed that the German bishops would have had to find a possibly unanimous solution. What will be the next steps? Will an intervention from the Vatican be necessary to clarify or will the German bishops have to find an agreement?
Pope Francis:
Well. This is not a novelty because in the Code of Canon Law, what the German bishops were talking about is foreseen: communion in special cases. And, they were looking at the problem of mixed marriages, no? If it is possible or it isn’t possible. And the Code says that the bishop of the particular Church – this word is important, “particular,” if it is of a diocese – must read that. It’s in his hands. This is in the Code. The German bishops, because they had seen that it wasn’t clear… also some priests did things who weren’t in agreement with the bishop, have wished to study this theme and have made this study that I don’t want to exaggerate, but it was a study of more than a year, and more… it’s more than a year… well done… and the study was restrictive.
What the bishops wanted is to say clearly what is in the Code. And, I read it and said: this is a restrictive document, no? It wasn’t open to everyone. It’s a well thought-out thing, with ecclesial spirit. And they wished to do it for the local Church, not the particular. The thing slid along up until there for the German [bishops’] conference. And there, there is a problem, because the Code does not foresee that. It foresees the bishop of the diocese, but not the conference, because a thing approved by an episcopal conference immediately becomes universal.
And this was the difficulty of the discussion: not so much the content, but this. And they sent the document. Then, there were two or three meetings of dialogue or of clarification and Archbishop Ladaria sent that letter, but with my permission. He didn’t do it alone! I told him: ‘Yes, it’s better to make a step ahead and say that the document isn’t yet mature and that the thing needed to be studied more.’ Then, there was another meeting and at the end they will study the thing.
I think that this will be an orientative document so that each of the diocesan bishops can manage what canon law already permits.
It wasn’t a brake … it is reading the thing so that it goes along the right path. When I made a visit to the Lutheran Church of Rome, a question of the kind was posed, and I replied according to the spirit of the Code of Canon Law. It is the spirit that they are seeking now. Maybe it wasn’t the right information in the right moment, a little bit of confusion, but this is the thing: the particular Church, the Code permits it, the local Church [episcopal conference] cannot because it would be universal.
(journalist inaudible)
But the conference can study and give orientative opinions to help the bishops to manage the particular cases. Thanks.
Greg Burke:
Now from the Spanish group there is Eva Fernandez of COPE agency and Spanish radio
Pope Francis:
They are good, these [journalists] of COPE
Eva Fernandez:
Thank you, Holy Father! We have seen that even the secretary general of the Ecumenical Council of Churches spoke of help to refugees. Just recently we have seen the incident of the Aquarius ship, also the separation of families in the United States. Do you think that some leaders instrumentalize/use the tragedy of refugees. Do they use them…?
Pope Francis:
I have spoken a lot on refugees, the criteria are those that I have said: to welcome, to accompany, to place, to integrate. This is the criteria for all refugees. Then I have said that every country should do this with the virtue of the rule of prudence, because a country should welcome as many refugees as it can and as many as it can integrate, educate, assimilate, give work to. This I would say is the straightforward/easy, serene plan for refugees. Here we are living [with] a wave of refugees that flee from wars and from hunger. The war and hunger of many countries in Africa, wars and persecution in the Middle East. Italy and Greece were very generous in welcoming [refugees], and for the Middle East, Turkey [was also], in respect to Syria, it has received many… Lebanon many… Lebanon has as many Syrians as Lebanese… and then Jordan… other countries, also Spain has received [them? some?].
There is a problem of trafficking migrants, and also there is the problem when in some cases they return, because they should return if this — I do not know/understand well the terms in agreement — if they are in the Libyan water, they should return… and there, I have seen the photographs of the detention centers controlled by the traffickers. Traffickers immediately separate the women from the men… women and babies go… God knows where! This is what the traffickers do! There is even a case that I know of where the traffickers were close to a ship that had accepted barges and… [they were saying] “give us the women and the babies and take the males.”
These traffickers and the detention centers of the traffickers eh, that have returned, they are terrible… terrible! In the detention camps of the Second World War they saw these things! And also the mutilizations in the torture of [forced?] labor and then they threw them to be in the comunes of the men. For this the leaders are concerned that they [the people] do not return and fall into the hands of these people [the traffickers]. It is a world-wide concern! I know that the leaders speak on this and they want to find an agreement, even to modify the Dublin agreement and all of this.
In Spain you have had the case of this ship that is docked in Valencia, but all of this is a mess… the problem of the wars is difficult to resolve. The problem of the persecution also of Christians in the Middle East, also in Nigeria… but the problem of hunger they can resolve, and many European leaders are thinking of an emergency plan to invest in these countries, to invest intelligently, to give work and education in these two things in the countries from which those people come… because — [I’ll say] one thing, not to offend, but it is the truth — in the collective subconscious, is a bad motto: Africa is exploited. And Africa is to be preyed on… this is in the subconscious… ‘eh, they are Africans.’ Always ‘land of slaves.’
And this should change with this plan of investment, and to increase education, because the African people have many cultural riches, many, and they have a great intelligence. The children are very intelligent and they, with a good education, can go beyond… this will be the road halfway to the goal, but in the moment leaders should make an agreement between themselves to go forward with these emergency fixes… this here in Europe! We go in America: in America there is a great migration problem.
(journalist inaudible)
In Latin America too there is an internal migration problem… in my homeland there is a migration problem from North to South and even these people leave the countryside because there is no work and the go to the big cities and where there are these megacities [or huge cities], the slums and all these things, but it is also an external migration to other countries that have work… and speaking concretely of the United States, I back that which the bishops of the country say. I side with them. Thank you.
Greg Burke:
Thanks, Holiness. Now is the English group: Deborah Castellano Lubov of the Zenit Agency.
Deborah Castellano Lubov (Zenit):
Thanks, Holiness! Holiness, in your address today to the ecumenical encounter you made reference to the enormous strength of the Gospel. We know some of the Churches, now the World Council of Churches, the so-called “pacifist Churches” who believe that a Christian cannot use violence. We remember that two years ago in the Vatican there was as conference organized. Do you think that it would be the case for the Catholic Church to unite to these so-called “Churches of peace” and set aside the doctrine of just war? Thanks.
Pope Francis:
A clarification, why do you say that there are “pacifist Churches?”
Deborah Castellano Lubov:
They are considered as pacifist because they have this way of reasoning that if a person (intuits) a violence, at that point they can no longer be considered Christians.
Pope Francis:
Thanks. I understand. Because you put your finger right in the wound, eh? I think that… today at lunch a pastor said that maybe the first human right is the right to hope and I liked that. And this has to do a bit with this and we spoke about the crisis of human rights today. I think that I have to begin from this to arrive to your question. The crisis of human rights is clearly seen. They speak a bit about human rights but so many groups or some countries take a distance, and “yes, human rights,” but there isn’t the strength, the enthusiasm, the conviction. I don’t say 70 years ago but 20 years ago. And this is grave because we have to see the causes, but what are the causes for which we have arrived to this that today human rights are relative. Also the right to peace is relative. It is a crisis of human rights. This I think that we must think it through to the end, or with certainty.
Then, Churches of peace. I think that all the Churches that have this spirit of peace must reunite and work together as we said in the speeches today, myself and the other people that spoke. And at lunch, unity for peace was spoken of. Peace is an exigency because there is risk of a war that we … some have said this: this third world war, if it is done, we know with which arms it will be done… but if there were a fourth, it would be done with sticks because humanity will be destroyed. The commitment for peace is serious, but when you think of the money that is spent on weapons… for this, the religions of peace… is the mandate of God. Peace, fraternity, human unity. All of the conflicts, don’t resolve them like Cain, resolve them with negotiations, with dialogue, with mediations… for example, we’re in a crisis of mediations. The mediation as a juridical figure (very rich) today is in pure crisis. Hope is in crisis, crisis of human rights, crisis of mediations, crisis of peace.
But then if you say that there are religions of peace, I ask myself, where are the religions of war? It’s tough to understand this. It’s tough. But, some groups, I would say in almost all of the small religious groups, I will say a bit simply fundamentalists, seek wars… Also we Catholics have some. They always seek destruction, no? And this is very important to have our eyes on it. I don’t know if I replied. Thanks.
They say that the population is asking for lunch, eh, dinner, that there is just enough time to arrive with a full stomach. It’s just to tell you… a word that I want to say clearly that today was an ecumenical day, really ecumenical! And at lunch we said a beautiful word, a beautiful thing, that I leave with you so that you think on it and reflect, you make a nice consideration of this. In the ecumenical movement we have to take from the dictionary a word: “proselytism.” Clear? You cannot have ecumenism with proselytism. You have to choose. Either you have an ecumenical spirit or you are a proselytizer.
Thanks! I would continue speaking because I like it… but now let’s make the Substitute [of the Secretariat of State] come because it is the last trip he’ll make with us, because now he’s going to change color, but not for embarrassment! We want to say goodbye to him. It’s a Sardinian cake to celebrate!
Cardinal-elect Angelo Becciu (Sardinian-born Substitute of the Holy See Secretariat of State):
Thanks! It is a double surprise of calling me and thanking me in front of you! And then there’s a Sardinian cake. Well, then, we’ll try it with pleasure! I truly thank the Holy Father for this occasion, but for everything, because he has allowed me this magnificent experience of traveling so much with him. At the beginning, he scared me saying, ‘No, I’ve made few trips.’ Do you remember? And then after one, he added another and then another and we said to ourselves, ‘good thing he said there would be few and they’ve been many.’ A magnificent experience of seeing the Holy Father spread the Word of God courageously. My service has been only this: to help him in this. Alright? Thanks to all of you and to those who have helped us! Thanks.
Pope Francis:
Buon appetito, have a good dinner and thanks so much! And pray for me, please. Thanks.
[…]
Gag us with a spoon, gag us with BS, or gag us with words of misbesotted men who speak the truth of their own devise. Lord, have mercy.
“…the Council has not yet been accepted.” Obviously. So it is that traditionalists take no pleasure in agreeing that certain post-conciliar opes have opted not to accept the literal intentional meaning of the Fathers as they have written in certain Council documents. That explains why the traditional movement will never die.
Yes. Some men do refuse to accept the teaching of VCII, and it seems they cannot get enough of projecting hate, blame, ridicule, and other favored delectable derogation upon some devout faithful. Such a mistake is of epic spiritual proportion. The traditional movement, knowing and loving truth, will live forever in papal infamy. Truth is Christ, and Christ never dies.
Curious that some hierarchs entertain no qualm in judging some truths but elide and deny affronts to others.
Labeling is not getting at problems deriving from misunderstandings of VATICAN II. But a fully pastoral dynamic would give the true lead from VATICAN II and faithfully tend to those who can and do follow it faithfully.
Many groups are persistently at odds with VATICAN II:
– Chinese State Church
– German apostate movement
– Politicians declared for legal abortion, homosexuality, etc.
– Secret society groups like Freemasons
– Sankt Gallen Group
– Clerical globalists
– Vaccine clericalists
– WEF-GAVI Catholics
– Vaccine Elites
– Etc.
Some are destroyers. Some are underminers. Some consider themselves “restorers”. They all want to believe that they are reformists and some will profess to be reforming along with Pope Francis. They will say they are behind the Pope in everything the Pope wants in reform of the Curia and the Vatican bureaucracy; and in the exemplifying of the commandments of openness and fraternity. They think and behave in that manner and the Holy Father seems to be paternalizing it.
If you pay close attention to Archbishop Shevchuk you will discover a host of ways that he is at odds with ….. openness and fraternity ….. that some say IS the meaning of VATICAN II. Plus, in his own style Shevchuk has highlighted how the 4 principles in Evangelii Gaudium can have a “different” connotation and result that at the same time are very highly personalized to him and President Zelensky.
So, on top of being at odds with VATICAN II, these groupings are always doing their own thing and their own extra things.
I am not labeling anyone, only giving the Holy Father’s use of a label of “restorer” its true context. As I understand it the Sankt Gallen group labeled itself; but some people add “Mafia” to the label.
Elias, you may know it was Cardinal Carlo Martini SJ when Archbishop Milan who established approx 1995 the Sankt Gallen Group, Martini nicknamed the radical pope. Cardinal Czerny SJ the prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development recently called Cardinal Mario Martini a prophet. We find in this Jesuit league of heterodox gentlemen a distinct pattern of proportional ethics centered on mitigation and favorable outcome.
Although Cardinal Carlo Martini specifically espoused prohibition of abortion Sandro Magister nonetheless notes Martini’s attentiveness to gray areas in moral doctrine. “The cardinal seems too tempted by a mitigated interpretation of things – a perfect example of this is the euphemistic formulas on abortion – in keeping with an incorrigible propensity on the part of the ‘pro-dialogue’ Catholic circles, of which he has always been a point of reference” (Pietro De Marco on Cardinal Martini and abortion in Sandro Magister’s Carlo Maria Martini’s Day After April 2006). Cardinal Martini in his 2012 paperback Credere e conoscere Faith and Understanding, while agreeing with the concept of traditional marriage says it is “not right to express any discrimination on other types of unions.”
There is marked similarity between Martini and Bergoglio [allegedly Martini’s protege] in the espousal of prohibitive ethics in tandem with “a mitigated interpretation of things”, to wit, on abortion and homosexuality. With heterodox Jesuit Jean Claude Hollerich appointed by Jesuit Pope Francis as Synod relator the Jesuit League of Destructeurs is well placed to marginalize the restorers. Perhaps. Whatever transpires in the end Christus Vincit.
“The problem is precisely this: in some contexts, the Council has not yet been accepted. It is also true that it takes a century for a Council to take root. We still have 40 years to make it take root, then!”
On the other hand, in addition to the “restorers,” there are at least as many “deconstructionist” peddlers of the “virtual” Council who also do not yet accept the real Council. The question of the moment might be how a now-demoted curia can still deal with this two-sided problem with restored (!) coherence.
Part of the solution for all parties might be exercising the institutional memory to actually read the documents of the Council (a most remarkable “suggestion” made at the 20th anniversary (!) of the Council, in 1985, by the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops convened precisely to clarify “divergent opinions”); and accountability to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (a “fruit of the Council,” initiated by the same Synod and released in 1992/1994); and maybe much more of what we do see now in the recent papal rebuke of Bishop Batzing—that we don’t need a second evangelical (Lutheran) church in Germany: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/06/14/pope-francis-told-bishop-batzing-we-dont-need-two-evangelical-churches-in-germany/ That summarizes a lot! Also, a response to the dubia, too, consistent with the post-Vatican II (!) Veritatis Splendor; plus, papal support for Eucharistic coherence (a very low bar, indeed) would also signal the more unified and 100-hundred-years-out future direction of the perennial and Eucharistic Church.
Very respectfully, one can notice such details without being a “restorer” in rejection of Vatican II. Quite the opposite.
How would he know?
On the other hand, some of us would like to see further reforms to continue the work of the Council, especially in the areas of evangelization and mission, and more work on the vocation of baptism. It’s a simple fact that the work of the council is unfinished because the Church as a human institution is an unfinished work.
Yea, verily, another half-truth or less to insinuate that “the Church as [is] a human institution…” Instead, given the reality of Pentecost as the origin of the Church, the Church also teaches that “the bishops have by divine institution [!] taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ” (Lumen Gentium, 20:2).
So, the Church evolves as an essentially “unfinished work” and essentially a “human institution,” only if the First Ecumenical Council, at Nicaea (325 A.D.), was wrong to shed Arianism.
So, a divine institution, but, yes, partly in human hands. Yet…
As the Body of Christ, we believe: “The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away, and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of the Lord Jesus Christ (cf 1 Tim 6:14, Tit. 2:13)” (Dei Verbum, n. 4). “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8).
Peter, the word I used is “as.” Your interpretation “as (is)” is your own wording, and a fake news reply to mine. The Church easily has human elements, readily identifiable. These are open to virtue or flaws and even sin.
Where the ideals and particulars of the Council have failed to take root: this is a manifestation of our human weakness. Never fear, though: God is content to work in human weakness. That, my friend, is an apostolic truth. But it doesn’t mean we can be content to linger in our flaws and failures.
Not entirely as(!) “fake news,” but my intent was to clarify an idea not precluded by your wording (“as”), rather than to contest your likely more precise meaning (not “is”). Thank you, here, for clarifying my clarification. We are on the same page. Are we having fun, yet?
Jesus gave us the Holy Spirit to forever guide and teach us. So, yes the mission of this Church continues. Our Church is indeed human because it was established for the descendants of Adam and Eve. However, because it is a family of human souls that is intimately one with Jesus, it has also a divine dimension. So, though Catholics continue to breathe, eat, reproduce etc. like earthly beings, we do have the Holy Spirit and the sanctifying graces that enable us to maintain our oneness with the Son of God.
Has Pope Francis ever spent any time on American soil?
Has he mingled among American Catholic sheep enough to become familiar with their “scent?” But, I answer my own question – Chicago, Washington DC, New Jersey and, now, San Diego. I believe that we understand all too well the “scent” of the particular sheep with which Pope Francis is intimately familiar.
Other than from communing with that close circle of associates, I suspect that PF assimilates his worldview of America by perusing various British tabloids, if he exerts that much effort.
Why cannot a person have a wide Catholic view that encompasses many philosophies? There seems to be a tendency to pigeonhole our Pope by giving him a label or category and then judging him accordingly. In a letter to the Corinthians, Paul warns us not to judge but the leave it to God who will “expose the motives of men’s hearts”. And that applies to all of us. Paul, who grew up in a community that was conditioned by Laws or doctrines, became aware of the role that conscience played. As he told the Romans that those who do not know the Law, their conscience will bear witness. We do, of course, have a memorable example when an adulteress was brought before Jesus. Our Lord knew that she had sinned (did he not tell her to sin no more) but he did not condemn her. This is very significant. Is there something that he saw deep in her soul that all those religious people did not? Our merciful and just Lord sees much more than we can see superficially and so judges differently.
Committing a wrongdoing – no matter how serious – does not necessarily make the wrongdoer a sinner. Our Catechism teaches us that for a wrongdoing – thought, word or deed – to be a sin the person must know that it is wrong and have full consent of the will. When a person who does something wrong because voices told him to do it, is he committing a sin? Does a non-Catholic Christian who divorces and remarries commit a sin? No, because he/she has been conditioned by the religious belief that it is not sinful. Did Jesus sin when he broke the Law pertaining to the Sabbath?
Pope Francis, like Pope JP2 and Benedict16, believes that we should refrain from sinning. There is no rupture in their teachings. It could be that he has a deeper appreciation of the merciful nature of our infinitely loving God.
Ships passing in the night. Yes, “there is no rupture in their teachings,” but there is a rupture between the teachings and what is enabled in practice by informal signaling and other actions, inactions, and silences…
Try to grasp this elementary point…specifically addressed for our edification by Pope St. John Paul II, in anticipation of current subtleties and deceptions. Take, for example, this, from Veritatis Splendor (VS), now part of the Church’s Magisterium, and which, therefore (!), has been rendered invisible since 2013:
“A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid and general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision [no longer a moral judgment] about what is good and what is evil. On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a ‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept [thou shalt not]” (VS, n. 56).
Really part of the the Church’s formal and teaching Magisterium? Try this:
“This is the first time, in fact, that the Magisterium of the Church [!] has set forth in detail the fundamental elements of this teaching [‘Christian moral teaching’], and presented the principles for the pastoral discernment necessary in practical and cultural situations which are complex and even crucial” (VS, n. 115).
So, what does it mean when sympathizers of the homosexual lifestyle (the lifestyle agenda, not judging the individual persons!) are advanced to high positions, when the poster-child James Martin is given papal photo ops and elevated as a curial consultor, and when the synodal frontrunners Marx/Batzing/Hollerich & Co. each announce (simultaneously!) the needed demolition of both natural law (of which, “the Church is no way the author or the arbiter of this norm” (VS, n. 95), and the Catechism, all robed with the same media techniques as earlier smothered the “real” Second Vatican Council (the clarity of the voted Documents) under the “virtual-media” council of the fluid and so-called spirit of Vatican II?
Disagree if you still must, but at least address and exhibit a rudimentary grasp of the self-evident issue of contention/misunderstanding/likely schism—-
the rupture (documented above) between Francis and his predecessors, and between (your focus on) “teachings” and disconnected categories of action (also above) enabled by Chapter 8 and fn. 351 of Amoris Laetitia (2013) and now being exploited, synodally, by imposter successors of the Apostles.
So, yes, mercy, but within the truth. A work in progress…but scandalously flawed.
To be honest, Peter, I too was at sometime perturbed by these proclamations. I was, like the Pharisees of our Lord’s time, very comfortable with the teachings of the Church. I was aware of right, wrong, good and bad. So, I submitted many posts in which I criticized the Pope. However, I did continue to pray for the Church and our Pope keeping in mind what our Founder emphatically said: on THIS rock I Will build my Church. It soon dawned on me that there was no problem with the Church or the Rock, but that it was in my attitude and failure to truly take into account the teachings of the Church which, in my younger days, good nuns and priests had passed on to me.
Our Catechism unambiguously states that for an act to be deemed a sin, the act must be a wrongdoing. But it goes on to say that the wrongdoer must be be fully aware of it being a wrongdoing, and that it must be committed intentionally, willfully. So, obviously it is not just the act that needs to be considered but also the awareness and the intention.
This is Church teaching as it has always been. Pope Francis, who is affectionately called the Slum Pope by those who know him personally, would have come across many instances among the impoverished, the betrayed spouses and the helpless ones who had to live in accordance with their sad situations. Church teachings apply not only to the educated, well-off Catholics in the West but also to those neglected by the world. This is what makes it Catholic – and Christian (Christ-like).
I now understand Pope Francis, and agree with him on this statement.
Peter and Mal,
According to JPII’s Encyclical “Dives in Misericordia, mercy is experienced when one is merciful. Question: Does man owe mercy to God? Does one give mercy to God when one sins against Him? Are Church bishops acting mercifully toward God, Church members and mankind in general when they overlook or excuse sin? When they fail to teach, explain, or define that in which sin consists? When they redefine sin and ‘pastorally’ enable or encourage its continuance?
“Conversion is the most concrete expression of the… presence of mercy in the human world. The true and proper meaning of mercy…is manifested in its true and proper aspect when it restores to value, promotes and draws good from all the forms of evil existing in the world and in man. Understood in this way, mercy constitutes the fundamental content of the messianic message of Christ and the constitutive power of His mission.” (Paragraph 6, Dives in Misericordia)
He refuses to condemn Putin by name. He refuses to condemn the Chinese authorities for their persecution of Catholics, including the arrest of Cardinal Zen. But Francis has no problem lashing out at traditional Catholics who just want to preserve the traditions and beliefs of the Church which he himself is hellbent on destroying. I bet he can’t even cite which documents and declaration of the Council the “Restorers” supposedly reject.
The sooner his corrupt Pontificate comes to an end, the better. We need a Shepherd, not ab abusive bully.
This is our Lord’s Church and he gives us what we need – not what you or I want.
Mal, Pope Francis used the label “restorer” and it swipes indiscriminately at the faithful.
You can’t accept a label without knowing what the content is and if you did accept it without knowing the content, you would be dishonest. I am not the first to recognize this nor the first to say it; but I am not going to reveal how many have mentioned it, it’s too basic!
On the other hand, there are some professed Catholics who are labeling themselves and professing content inconsistent with the fullness of faith, or, just deficient or questionable; yet,
1. they are insisting they are to be credited as leaders because of “what is in their hearts” and
2. what is going to come out of it is “development” obliging on the way us to wait and see.
I know some Scripture about that and I shall not share it with you.
The Holy Father has propounded 4 “principles” in Evangelii Gaudium. They very nearly match things intuited by Lenin and as such they have nothing to do with St. Vincent of Lerins or the Deposit of Faith or the Catholic Church. Whatever and whatever -but ….. but ….. but the Holy Father himself is not consistent with the offering in those 4 dicta.
Meanwhile the course he seems to be charting might turn out to be be pluralist but right now it’s neither magisterial nor pluralist in the sense of VATICAN II -full circle, nobody can really know what the content is and they must suspend discretion and discernment lest they run to judgment/judgmentalism.
What I do notice is that ever so often, you, Mal, restate stuff about the faith and play a hunch, “It is Pope Francis! Because the Holy Spirit guaranteed it!” Kind of spavined like you’re always hitting some kind of a paydirt. So, okay, you feel snakeblooded with it but the very doctrine already enunciated is, wait and see! The synod still has to decide.
YiHa! I have a notion you are hogtied. YippieYaYo! Time for the Bourbon!
In the link to the CWR article, George Weigel’s latest on conclaves, you will see in the comments where Fr. Morello describes how the original Sankt Gallen Owlhoots is mostly demised but that it is persisting in its heirs who are some tough old coots and va`rmints going exactly plumb nowhere for now.
Needless-to-say the 4 “principles” in Evangelii can not remedy the other malformations highlighted in the document. If anything it accommodates them.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/06/15/demythologizing-conclaves/
“but the very doctrine already enunciated is, wait and see! The synod still has to decide”
Well, not so. This synodal process is not about doctrine. It never has been. Pope Francis emphasized this point on quite a few occasions.
Well then you have said it Mal very much the drygulcher.