Aboard the papal plane, Mar 8, 2021 / 03:00 pm (CNA).- Please read below for CNA’s full transcript of Pope Francis’ in-flight press conference from Baghdad, Iraq, to Rome, Italy on March 8, 2021.
Pope Francis: First of all, thank you for your work, your company, your fatigue. Then, today is Women’s Day. Congratulations to the women. Women’s Day. But they were saying why is there no Men’s Day? Even when [I was] in the meeting with the wife of the president. I said it was because us men are always celebrated and we want to celebrate women. And the wife of the president spoke well about women, she told me lovely things today, about that strength that women have to carry forward life, history, the family, many things. Congratulations to everyone. And third, today is the birthday of the COPE journalist. Or the other day. Where are you?
Matteo Bruni, Holy See press office director: It was yesterday.
Pope Francis: Best wishes and we should celebrate it, right? We will see how we can [do it] here. Very well. Now, the word is yours.
Bruni: The first question comes from the Arabic world: Imad Atrach of Sky News Arabia.
Imad Abdul Karim Atrach (Sky News Arabia): Holiness, two years ago in Abu Dhabi there was the meeting with the Imam al-Tayyeb of al-Azhar and the signing of the document on human fraternity. Three days ago you met with al-Sistani. Are you thinking to something similar with the Shiite side of Islam? And then a second thing about Lebanon, which St. John Paul II said is more than a country, it is a message. This message, unfortunately, as a Lebanese, I tell you that this message is now disappearing. Can we think a future visit by you to Lebanon is imminent?
Pope Francis: The Abu Dhabi document of February 4 was prepared with the grand imam in secret during six months, praying, reflecting, correcting the text. It was, I will say, a little assuming but take it as a presumption, a first step of what you ask me about.
Let’s say that this [Ed. meeting with al-Sistani] would be the second [step] and there will be others. It is important, the journey of fraternity. Then, the two documents. The Abu Dhabi one created a concern for fraternity in me, Fratelli tutti came out, which has given a lot. We must… both documents must be studied because they go in the same direction, they are seeking fraternity.
Ayatollah al-Sistani has a phrase which I expect to remember well. Every man… men are either brothers for religion or equals for creation. And fraternity is equality, but beneath equality we cannot go. I believe it is also a cultural path.
We Christians think about the Thirty Years’ War. The night of St. Bartholomew [Ed. St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre], to give an example. Think about this. How the mentality has changed among us, because our faith makes us discover that this is it: the revelation of Jesus is love, charity, and it leads us to this. But how many centuries [will it take] to implement it? This is an important thing, human fraternity. That as men we are all brothers and we must move forward with other religions.
The [Second] Vatican Council took a big step forward in [interreligious dialogue], also the later constitution, the council for Christian unity, and the council for religious dialogue — Cardinal Ayuso accompanies us today — and you are human, you are a child of God and you are my brother, period. This would be the biggest indication. And many times you have to take risks to take this step. You know that there are some critics who [say] “the pope is not courageous, he is an idiot who is taking steps against Catholic doctrine, which is a heretical step.” There are risks. But these decisions are always made in prayer, in dialogue, asking for advice, in reflection. They are not a whim and they are also the line that the [Second Vatican] Council has taught us. This is his first question.
The second: Lebanon is a message. Lebanon is suffering. Lebanon is more than a balance. It has the weakness of the diversity which some are still not reconciled to, but it has the strength of the great people reconciled like the fortress of the cedars. Patriarch Rai asked me to please make a stop in Beirut on this trip, but it seemed somewhat too little to me: A crumb in front of a problem in a country that suffers like Lebanon. I wrote a letter and promised to make a trip to Lebanon. But Lebanon at the moment is in crisis, but in crisis — I do not want to offend — but in a crisis of life. Lebanon is so generous in welcoming refugees. This is a second trip.
Bruni: Thank you, Your Holiness. The second question comes from Johannes Neudecker of the German news agency Dpa.
Johannes Neudecker (Deutsche Presse-Agentur): Thank you, Holy Father. My question is also about the meeting with al-Sistani. In what measure was the meeting with al-Sistani also a message to the religious leaders of Iran?
Pope Francis: I believe it was a universal message. I felt the duty of this pilgrimage of faith and penance to go and find a great man, a wise man, a man of God. And just listening to him you perceived this. And speaking of messages, I will say: It is a message for everyone, it is a message for everyone. And he is a person who has that wisdom and also prudence… he told me that for 10 years, “I do not receive people who come to visit me with also other political or cultural aims, no… only for religious [purposes].” And he was very respectful, very respectful in the meeting. I felt very honored; he never gets up even to greet people. He got up to greet me twice. A humble and wise man. This meeting did my soul good. He is a light. These wisemen are everywhere because God’s wisdom has been spread all over the world.
It also happens the same with the saints, who are not only those who are on the altars, they are the everyday saints, the ones I call “next-door saints.” Men and women who live their faith, whatever it may be, with coherence. Who live human values with coherence, fraternity with coherence. I believe that we should discover these people, highlight them, because there are so many examples. When there are scandals in the Church, many, this does not help, but we show the people seeking the path of fraternity. The saints next door. And we will find the people of our family, for sure. For sure a few grandpas, a few grandmas.
Eva Fernandez (Radio COPE): Holy Father, it is great to resume the press conferences again. It is very good. My apologies, but my colleagues have asked me to ask this question in Spanish.
[In Spanish] During these days your trip to Iraq has had a great impact throughout the world. Do you think that this could be the trip of your pontificate? And also, it has been said that it was the most dangerous. Have you been afraid at some point during this trip? And soon we will return to travel and you, who are about to complete the eighth year of your pontificate, do you still think it will be a short [pontificate]? And the big question always for the Holy Father, will you ever return to Argentina? Will Spain still have hope that one day the pope will visit?
Pope Francis: Thank you, Eva, and I made you celebrate your birthday twice — once in advance and another belated.
I start with the last question, which is a question that I understand. It is because of that book by my friend, the journalist and doctor, Nelson Castro. He wrote a book on [the history of] presidents’ illnesses, and I once told him, already in Rome, “But you have to do one on the diseases of the popes because it will be interesting to know the health issues of the popes — at least of some who are more recent.”
He started [writing] again, and he interviewed me. The book came out. They tell me it is good, but I have not seen it. But he asked me a question: “If you resign” — well, if I will die or if I will resign — “If you resign, will you return to Argentina or will you stay here?”
I said: “I will not go back to Argentina.” This is what I have said, but I will stay here in my diocese. But in that case, this goes together with the question: When will I visit Argentina? And why have I not gone there? I always answer a little ironically: “I spent 76 years in Argentina, that’s enough, isn’t it?”
But there is one thing. I do not know why, but it has not been said. A trip to Argentina was planned for November 2017 and work began. It was Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay. This was at the end of November. But then at that time there was an election campaign happening in Chile because on that day in December the successor of Michelle Bachelet was elected. I had to go before the government changed, I could not go [further].
So let us do this: Go to Chile in January. And then in January it was not possible to go to Argentina and Uruguay because January is like our August here, it is July and August in both countries. Thinking about it, the suggestion was made: Why not include Peru, because Peru was bypassed during the trip to Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay, and remained apart. And from this was born the January trip between Chile and Peru.
But this is what I want to say so that you do not create fantasies of “patriaphobia.” When there are opportunities, it must be done, right? Because there is Argentina and Uruguay and the south of Brazil, which are a very great cultural composition.
About my travels: I make a decision about my trips by listening. The invitations are many. I listen to the advice of the counselors and also to the people. Sometimes someone comes and says: What do you think? Should I go or not? And it is good for me to listen. And this helps me to make the decision later.
I listen to the counselors and in the end I pray. I pray and I think a lot. I have reflected a lot about some trips, and then the decision comes from within. It is almost spontaneous, but like a ripe fruit. It is a long way, isn’t it? Some are more difficult, some are easier, and the decision about this trip comes early.
The first invitation of the ambassador, first, that pediatrician doctor who was the ambassador of Iraq, very good. She persisted. And then came the ambassador to Italy who is a woman of battle. Then the new ambassador to the Vatican came and fought. Soon the president came. All these things stayed with me.
But there is one thing behind my decision that I would like to mention. One of you gave me a Spanish edition [of the book] “The Last Girl.” I have read it in Italian, then I gave it to Elisabetta Piqué to read. Did you read it? More or less it is the story of the Yazidis. And Nadia Murad tells about terrifying things. I recommend that you read it. In some places it may seem heavy, but for me this was the trasfondo of God, the underlying reason for my decision. That book worked inside me. And also when I listened to Nadia who came to tell me terrible things. Then, with the book… All these things together made the decision; thinking about all the many issues. But finally the decision came and I took it.
And, about the eighth year of my pontificate. Should I do this? [He crosses his fingers.] I do not know if my travel will slow down or not. I only confess that on this trip I felt much more tired than on the others. The 84 [years] do not come alone, it is a consequence. But we will see.
Now I will have to go to Hungary for the final Mass of the Eucharistic Congress, not a visit to the country, but just for the Mass. But Budapest is a two-hour drive from Bratislava, why not make a visit to Slovakia? I do not know. That is how they are thinking. Excuse me. Thank you.
Bruni: Thank you, Eva. Now the next question is from Chico Harlan of the Washington Post.
Chico Harlan (Washington Post): Thank you, Holy Father. I will ask my question in English with the help of Matteo. [In English] This trip obviously had extraordinary meaning for the people who got to see you, but it did also lead to events that caused conditions conducive to spreading the virus. In particular, unvaccinated people packed together singing. So as you weigh the trip, the thought that went into it and what it will mean, do you worry that the people who came to see you could also get sick or even die. Can you explain that reflection and calculation. Thank you.
Pope Francis: As I said recently, the trips are cooked over time in my conscience. And this is one of the [thoughts] that came to me most, “maybe, maybe.” I thought a lot, I prayed a lot about this. And in the end I freely made the decision. But that came from within. I said: “The one who allows me to decide this way will look after the people.” And so I made the decision like this but after prayer and after awareness of the risks, after all.
Bruni: The next question comes from Philippine de Saint-Pierre of the French press.
Philippine de Saint-Pierre (KTO): Your Holiness, we have seen the courage and dynamism of Iraqi Christians. We have also seen the challenges they face: the threat of Islamist violence, the exodus of Christians, and the witnesss of the faith in their environment. These are the challenges facing Christians through the region. We spoke about Lebanon, but also Syria, the Holy Land, etc. The synod for the Middle East took place 10 years ago but its development was interrupted with the attack on the Baghdad cathedral. Are you thinking about organizing something for the entire Middle East, be it a regional synod or any other initiative?
Pope Francis: I’m not thinking about a synod. Initiatives, yes — I am open to many. But a synod never came to mind. You planted the first seed, let’s see what will happen. The life of Christians in Iraq is an afflicted life, but not only for Christians. I came to talk about Yazidis and other religions that did not submit to the power of Daesh. And this, I don’t know why, gave them a very great strength. But there is a problem, like you said, with emigration. Yesterday, as we drove from Qaraqosh to Erbil, there were lots of young people and the age level was low, low, low. Lots of young people. And the question someone asked me: But these young people, what is their future? Where will they go? Many will have to leave the country, many. Before leaving for the trip the other day, on Friday, 12 Iraqi refugees came to say goodbye to me. One had a prosthetic leg because he had escaped under a truck and had an accident… so many escaped. Migration is a double right. The right to not emigrate and the right to emigrate. But these people do not have either of the two. Because they cannot not emigrate, they do not know how to do it. And they cannot emigrate because the world squashes the consciousness that migration is a human right.
The other day — I’ll go back to the migration question — an Italian sociologist told me, speaking about the demographic winter in Italy: “But within 40 years we will have to import foreigners to work and pay pension taxes.” You French are smarter, you have advanced 10 years with the family support law and your level of growth is very large.
But immigration is experienced as an invasion. Because he asked, yesterday I wanted to receive Alan Kurdi’s father after Mass. This child is a symbol for them. Alan Kurdi is a symbol, for which I gave a sculpture to FAO [the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations]. It is a symbol that goes beyond a child who died in migration. He is a symbol of dying civilizations, which cannot survive. A symbol of humanity. Urgent measures are needed so that people have work in their place and do not have to emigrate. And also measures to safeguard the right to emigrate. It is true that every country must study well the ability to receive [immigrants], because it is not only about receiving them and leaving them on the beach. Receive them, accompany them, help them progress, and integrate them. The integration of immigrants is key.
Two anecdotes: Zaventem, in Belgium: the terrorists were Belgians, born in Belgium, but from ghettoized, non-integrated Islamic immigrants. Another example: when I went to Sweden, during the farewell ceremony, there was the minister, of what I don’t know, [Ed. Alice Bah-Kuhnke, Swedish Minister of Culture and Democracy from 2014 to 2019], she was very young, and she had a distinctive appearance, not typical of Swedes. She was the daughter of a migrant and a Swede, and so well integrated that she became minister [of culture]. Looking at these two things, they make you think a lot, a lot, a lot.
I would like to thank the generous countries. The countries that receive migrants, Lebanon. Lebanon was generous with emigrants. There are two million Syrians there, I think. And Jordan — unfortunately, we will not pass over Jordan because the king is very nice, King Abdullah wanted to pay us a tribute with the planes in passage. I will thank him now — Jordan has been very generous [with] more than one and a half million migrants, also many other countries… to name just two. Thank you to these generous countries. Thank you very much.
Matteo Bruni: The next question is in Italian from the journalist Stefania Falasca.
Stefania Falasca (Avvenire): Good morning, Holy Father. Thank you. In three days in this country, which is a key country of the Middle East, you have done what the powerful of the earth have been discussing for 30 years. You have already explained what was the interesting genesis of your travels, how the choices for your travels originate, but now in this juncture, can you also consider a trip to Syria? What could be the objectives from now to a year from now of other places where your presence is required?
Pope Francis: Thank you. In the Middle East only the hypothesis, and also the promise is for Lebanon. I have not thought about a trip to Syria. I have not thought about it because the inspiration did not come to me. But I am so close to the tormented and beloved Syria, as I call it. I remember from the beginning of my pontificate that afternoon of prayer in St. Peter’s Square. There was the rosary, adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. And how many Muslims with carpets on the ground were praying with us for peace in Syria, to stop the bombing, at that moment when it was said that there would be a fierce bombing. I carry Syria in my heart, but thinking about a trip, it has not occurred to me at this moment. Thank you.
Matteo Bruni: Thank you. The next question comes from Sylwia Wysocka of the Polish press.
Sylwia Wysocka (Polish Press Agency): Holy Father, in these very difficult 12 months your activity has been very limited. Yesterday you had the first direct and very close contact with the people in Qaraqosh: What did you feel? And then, in your opinion, now, with the current health system, can the general audiences with people, with faithful, recommence as before?
Pope Francis: I feel different when I am away from the people in the audiences. I would like to restart the general audiences again as soon as possible. Hopefully the conditions will be right. I will follow the norms of the authorities in this. They are in charge and they have the grace of God to help us in this. They are responsible for setting the rules, whether we like them or not. They are responsible and they have to be so.
Now I have started again with the Angelus in the square, with the distances it can be done. There is the proposal of small general audiences, but I have not decided until the development of the situation becomes clear. After these months of imprisonment, I really felt a bit imprisoned, this is, for me, living again.
Living again because it is touching the Church, touching the holy people of God, touching all peoples. A priest becomes a priest to serve, to serve the people of God, not for careerism, right? Not for the money.
This morning in the Mass there was [the Scripture reading about] the healing of Naaman the Syrian and it said that Naaman wanted to give gifts after he had been healed. But he refused… but the prophet Elisha refused them. And the Bible continues: the prophet Elisha’s assistant, when they had left, settled the prophet well and running he followed Naaman and asked for gifts for him. And God said, “the leprosy that Naaman had will cling to you.” I am afraid that we, men and women of the Church, especially we priests, do not have this gratuitous closeness to the people of God which is what saves us.
And to be like Naaman’s servant, to help, but then going back [for the gifts.] I am afraid of that leprosy. And the only one who saves us from the leprosy of greed, of pride, is the holy people of God, like what God spoke about with David, “I have taken you out of the flock, do not forget the flock.” That of which Paul spoke to Timothy: “Remember your mother and grandmother who nursed you in the faith.” Do not lose your belonging to the people of God to become a privileged caste of consecrated, clerics, anything.
This is why contact with the people saves us, helps us. We give the Eucharist, preaching, our function to the people of God, but they give us belonging. Let us not forget this belonging to the people of God. Then begin again like this.
I met in Iraq, in Qaraqosh… I did not imagine the ruins of Mosul, I did not imagine. Really. Yes, I may have seen things, I may have read the book, but this touches, it is touching.
What touched me the most was the testimony of a mother in Qaraqosh. A priest who truly knows poverty, service, penance; and a woman who lost her son in the first bombings by ISIS gave her testimony. She said one word: forgiveness. I was moved. A mother who says: I forgive, I ask forgiveness for them.
I was reminded of my trip to Colombia, of that meeting in Villavicencio where so many people, women above all, mothers and brides, spoke about their experience of the murder of their children and husbands. They said, “I forgive, I forgive.” But this word we have lost. We know how to insult big time. We know how to condemn in a big way. Me first, we know it well. But to forgive, to forgive one’s enemies. This is the pure Gospel. This is what touched me the most in Qaraqosh.
Matteo Bruni: There are other questions if you want. Otherwise we can…
Pope Francis: How long has it been?
Bruni: Almost an hour.
Pope Francis: We have been talking for almost an hour. I don’t know, I would continue, [joking] but the car… [is waiting for me.] Let’s do, how do you say, the last one before celebrating the birthday.
Matteo Bruni: The last is by Catherine Marciano from the French press, from the Agence France-Presse.
Catherine Marciano (AFP): Your Holiness, I wanted to know what you felt in the helicopter seeing the destroyed city of Mosul and praying on the ruins of a church. Since it is Women’s Day, I would like to ask a little question about women… You have supported the women in Qaraqosh with very nice words, but what do you think about the fact that a Muslim woman in love cannot marry a Christian without being discarded by her family or even worse. But the first question was about Mosul. Thank you, Your Holiness.
Pope Francis: I said what I felt in Mosul a little bit en passant. When I stopped in front of the destroyed church, I had no words, I had no words… beyond belief, beyond belief. Not just the church, even the other destroyed churches. Even a destroyed mosque, you can see that [the perpetrators] did not agree with the people. Not to believe our human cruelty, no. At this moment I do not want to say the word, “it begins again,” but let’s look at Africa. With our experience of Mosul, and these people who destroy everything, enmity is created and the so-called Islamic State begins to act. This is a bad thing, very bad, and before moving on to the other question — A question that came to my mind in the church was this: “But who sells weapons to these destroyers? Because they do not make weapons at home. Yes, they will make some bombs, but who sells the weapons, who is responsible? I would at least ask that those who sell the weapons have the sincerity to say: we sell weapons. They don’t say it. It’s ugly.
Women… women are braver than men. But even today women are humiliated. Let’s go to the extreme: one of you showed me the list of prices for women. [Ed. prepared by ISIS for selling Christian and Yazidi women.] I couldn’t believe it: if the woman is like this, she costs this much… to sell her… Women are sold, women are enslaved. Even in the center of Rome, the work against trafficking is an everyday job.
During the Jubilee, I went to visit one of the many houses of the Opera Don Benzi: Ransomed girls, one with her ear cut off because she had not brought the right money that day, and the other brought from Bratislava in the trunk of a car, a slave, kidnapped. This happens among us, the educated. Human trafficking. In these countries, some, especially in parts of Africa, there is mutilation as a ritual that must be done. Women are still slaves, and we have to fight, struggle, for the dignity of women. They are the ones who carry history forward. This is not an exaggeration: Women carry history forward and it’s not a compliment because today is Women’s Day. Even slavery is like this, the rejection of women… Just think, there are places where there is the debate regarding whether repudiation of a wife should be given in writing or only orally. Not even the right to have the act of repudiation! This is happening today, but to keep us from straying, think of what happens in the center of Rome, of the girls who are kidnapped and are exploited. I think I have said everything about this. I wish you a good end to your trip and I ask you to pray for me, I need it. Thank you.
[…]
Alas, mine appears to be the first comment. I had hoped others might offer some insight because I struggle with the point. What is it that you are saying? If nuanced, I confess I have missed it. The title is intriguing. Can anyone help?
You are not alone. I wasn’t quite sure what the main point of the article was. I was waiting for the different sections to develop into a central idea, but it didn’t quite work.
I was hoping this type of writing was, like the morning mist, vanished, something of the past…alas not.
Such lines and conclusions that fail holiness, godliness, virtue, as this, to the children of God and a godly Institute: “That’s fine, by the way. The pope can do what he wants with his stuff”, are devoid of the Christ and His Gospels morals and moral compass, there is nothing fine about such things, or written lines, no one can simply do want they want with his or her stuff. Objectively speaking there are mortal sins and after mortal sin, nothing find about that doing or reality either.
How can so much be so wrong so readily and written with such length? So disappointingly frustrating. Blessings, Chris. Sia Lodato Gesu` Cristo.
Interesting, “The problematic is primarily ecclesiological.” Ecclesiology is the study of the nature and purpose of the Church”. The problematic it seems is primarily theological as the ecclesiological is prescinding it – who is God, and what has He done and said about His Liturgy, ‘doing it by the Heavenly Pattern, not deviating to the left or right, etc’…. The Church, or Ecclesiological, receives His Liturgy and ‘is the dispenser not determiner of His Liturgy and mysteries’.
Right now it seems we are moving away from the Heavenly Pattern for one’s own pattern deviation, we are the designer and establisher, no longer the receiver and dispenser, of God’s Divine Liturgy. We think we are the object study of Theology, not God, we do not want ‘His divinely establish celebration of His Sacred Liturgy as we do not wish to give silent and eloquent testimony to Love of Him and His Liturgy’ (cf Ecclesia de Eucharistia, n 2; Redemptionis Sacramentum nn 31, 169)
We read: “It’s like we did things backward…”, as in “ready, fire, aim!”
Altieri refers to the First Vatican Council. Somewhere in that mix, Pope Pius IX blurted, “I am Tradition!” And here we thought that the Second Vatican Council fine-tuned that, a bit—the lack of clarity and the self-referential conflation of the man and the office…
T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) detected a similar predisposition among the Bedouin followers of Islam: “Sometimes inconsistencies seemed to possess them at once in joint sway; but they never compromised: they pursued the logic of several incompatible opinions to absurd ends, without perceiving the incongruity” (The Seven Pillars of Wisdom).
The cognitive dissonance of such conflation (or maybe only the staccato-rhythm of a personality-type in the wrong place?) is that now Pope Francis seems to conflate even the First Vatican Council’s polarities (Gallicanism versus Ultramontanism) “without perceiving the incongruity.” As in “governance” by decentralization conjoined with opposing edicts and signals. And, with the “mess” left for others to untangle—in possibly new and good ways, or not. Or to simply exploit as in Germany, and likely under Cardinal Hollerich and his word merchants of synodality in 2023.
Altieri’s concludes by calling for more of a “political heuristic.” How about this: incongruity in governance = the “hermeneutics of discontinuity.”
I’m with St. George above. I’m looking for clarity and succinctness. Not sure why I persevered to the end of this article.
I am starting to think Altieri and Beaulieu are the same person. I have come to the point of not being able to follow either of them, if, indeed, they are two separate individuals. I am doubting that at the moment.
Can we dispense with the needless flourishes, endless adjectives and erudite citations … just get to the point, but make sure you have a point to make. Unless, of course, you are being paid by the number of words; in that case, let us know up front. Otherwise, I will save myself the frustration and just pass over your babble.
Thank you!!! Thank you for saying what I have been thinking. Make your point clearly and succinctly in a way that moves the conversation forward. Attempts to sound intelligent or profound are generally ego driven. We honor truth by being concise and precise in our writing.
Not the same person. Never met. Not paid. Not an academic.
And not responsible for your accusing doubts expressed on an international website. As for “needless flourishes,” the confusion today needs the precision to both make a point while not generalizing into broad-brush slander. Not easy to do.
I find your charge of “ego” gratuitous, distracting, offensive, and unjustified. But who am I to judge? I am not even a theologian, just a layman who is both functionally literate and attentive to significant detail. And who has been in the trenches for well over half a century. I do agree on the need for conciseness, but propose that necessary precision can call for detail and extra words. Yes?
Example: the “erudite citations” well-selected from the explicit Magisterium of the Church on morality (bright-lined from the much longer Veritatis Splendor). Can’t help it if such concise precision falls short of your lofty gaze.
Inquisitive and thoughtful reading of CWR articles and comments sometimes helps. But, will also keep trying at this end. Thank you, I think.
“Falls short of your lofty gaze”
The sarcastic ad hominem is gratuitous, Peter.
By the way, is T E Lawrence magisterial material?
In answer to your question, T.E. Lawrence noticed something about the Islamic and non-Christian mind. It’s willingness to entertain genuinely contradictory propositions. The parallel to papal formal declarations alongside of informal signaling (not denying, but setting aside) objective morality, is probably self-evident.
Not magisterial (Lawrence), surely, but more fundamental as a violation, in human thought, of the non-demonstrable first principle of non-contradiction. Again, not “magisterial,” but something more basic about universal human logic, and, which is being compromised under cover of theology.
Instead, the Islamic “principle” of the double-truth—the accommodation that something can be both true theologically and not true philosophically (side by side). The Sufi mystic, Al-Ghazali, and this famous double-truth; a century or two before the greater clarity and coherence of the Christian Aquinas. The premise of Islam can come in a collar as readily as in a turban, as when we insinuate a legitimate wedge between moral truth and “pastoral” contradictions.
Without overstating this parallel, might it cause at least some of us to wonder, too, about the possible double-meaning of “fraternity” (the co-signed Dubai Declaration, 2019—holding/suggesting/insinuating that all religions are equivalently “willed” by God, rather than merely “permitted”)? In this world of “dialogue,” does anyone really care any more about contradictions?
At the great risk of “needless flourishes,” we might consider Pope Benedict who had this to say about the Muslim self-understanding as compared to fluid and generic Christianity:
“I am urging people to realize that a war has indeed been declared on the West. I am not pushing for a rejection of dialogue, which we need more than ever with those Islamic countries that wish to live in peaceful coexistence with the West, to our mutual benefit. I am asking for something more fundamental: I am asking for people to realize that dialogue will be a waste of time if one of the two partners to the dialogue states beforehand that one idea is as good as the other” (Pope Benedict XVI, “Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam,” 2006, p. 45.
As for my sarcasm and ad hominem remark matching your own…Yes, I overreacted. I regret not waiting for better wording. And, thank you for your question—a real question!—about the relevance of T.E. Lawrence.
In all sincerity, Peter, I am impressed with your wide range of references, seemingly available at your mental fingertips. But piling on the references doesn’t add clarity; it is often an obstacle to communication. I imagine you really do want readers to read your comments, that you want to bring them along in your thinking things through, and that you might even want to persuade, perhaps even equip your readers with usable material in their own thinking things through and conversations with still others. Obviously you have the right to express yourself as you determine, but it might be helpful if you considered efficient and effective expression. I probably should not submit this. My intention is certainly not to offend. I often appreciate your insights when I can find them; alas, sometimes I cannot.
A correction, and a relapse into more “ego-driven flourishes” (!). Not Dubai, but the Abu Dhabi Declaration (another and the capital of the seven United Arab Emirates).
The single wording questioned by critics is the apparent conflation of differences race, for example, with differences in (equivalent?) religions: “The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.” https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/travels/2019/outside/documents/papa-francesco_20190204_documento-fratellanza-umana.html
Straining at gnats (?), given the weighty truth and urgency of the entire Declaration. But, is there a pattern?
Going all the way back to the silent response to the dubia (the formal request for clarification filed in response to Amoris Laetitia)? Within the Church, is there a repeated blurring of objective morality (vs the Catechism and Veritatis Splendor), not only to recognize mitigating circumstances in individual cases, but to carve out entire categories of cases where objective morality pastorally no longer applies (while still being affirmed). What does it mean when the synodal Cardinal Grech explained recently that the intent is only to expand the existing grey area? As if celibacy is required of unmarried heterosexuals, but not devotees to the homosexual lifestyle?
The embarrassment to the establishment is that the synodal Marx, Batzing and Hollerich have departed from the script of ambiguity and grey expansion, by announcing together and through the magisterium-media that the Church’s teaching on sexual morality is in need of synodal reversal. Kumbaya!
Thanks for the reply, but I remain convinced that ego is involed here at some level, unfortunately. The posts often read like attempts to sound profound or erudite, but they do not actually produce that result. Having read thousands of pages of undergraduate and graduate writing at this point in my career, I can discern the subtle differences between substance and appearance fairly accurately. People are experiencing your posts differently than you might intend or realize. Something to think about.
Thank you for “something to think about.”
But, contrary to your thousands of pages of reading experiences, it’s not about ego at any level. Simply trying to figure things out in my own mind, usually in response to points raised by others. It would be a lot easier to just walk away from this stuff. Probably more egocentric, too. No risks.
Been thinking about your conviction that “ego is involved here at some level.” Still pondering. Could be true “at some level” and simply beyond my sight, but one apparent level at which ego actually is not involved goes something like this…
I sign my stuff, rather than not. A convention I learned in a junior high school art class when I was rebuked (gently) for not signing my name at the lower right corner of a painting. Pseudonyms and anonymity are probably more conventional on websites, but I choose otherwise, and to take full responsibility. As one Western theologian explains: “go ahead, make my day.”
And, second, the added specificity of using my middle initial (ego?) is driven by the fact that without the middle initial I have been confused (some years back) with a monsignor by the same name, 3,000 miles away in New England I think. Absent the initial our emails were being misdirected. So, the middle initial.
Which brings us back to the suspicion that I and Mr. Altieri might be the same person using two different names. I humbly apologize to Altieri for any insult he might have suffered.
So, I’ll turn the tables on Pontiff Francis and apply to him the same standard he’s always so eager to apply to everyone else and I’ll ask: “Is Pontiff Francis’ governance PASTORAL?”
Yes. As a priest he was, and so also as a bishop. People in the slums said so. And now, as the Vicar of Christ (a title he never gave up as some want us to believe) he is reminding us of this Christian duty.
Learn from our Holy Mother. What a man believes about everything is measured by one thing. It is not measured by what he claims to believe or even what he thinks he really does believe about truth, or philosophy, or eternity, or history, or God. What a man believes flows entirely from what he believes about evil, the nature of evil, and his own complicity in evil because this is the matter to which we lie to ourselves the most, and it affects how we need to form our beliefs about everything else. If a man has a need to depersonalize and externalize his own awareness of evil, he might very well form his belief system along the lines of a political revolutionary, believing that evil in the human condition can be eliminated once and for all once the correct elites are allowed to control all systems of governance throughout the world, even dictating to the Church, what its mission should be. At Lourdes, Our Holy Mother did not say that which offends God are our failures to be good administrators or good philosophers or the best politicians or the best scholars or the best theologians. She told us plain and simple that it is only our sins by which God is much offended. The Church doesn’t need to be “led’ by a Pope to any place new. It simply has to cease abandoning its mission, its only mission, to save souls.
The honorable author is stating that we need to recapture a theology that places in context the extent of ecclesial authority. The author is saying that it is possible for (certain) ecclesial offices to conflate the duty and power of the office with the personal whim of the person occupying the same.
The difference between the office and the office-holder is an abstraction and a distinction of no consequence. The office might set limits and expectations, but in reality the office-holder defines the office. There is no escaping that. And with an absolute monarch such as the papacy, there can be no checks and balances. For good or for ill, and, oh my, has Bergoglio shown us the latter, we must endure the office-holder until God or he decides it is time to check out.
We must, of course, never forget that this particular office was established by the Founder of the Church with an assurance that whatever he would bind on earth would be bound in heaven, and that he was given the keys to heaven.
Do we trust Jesus on this? I do.
I fail to see why there is such confusion about Mr. Altieri’s article. His point is a very simple one that is nonetheless devastating: Bergoglio has throughout his horrendous pontificate grotesquely abused his power of governance as though he were a Mafia crime boss.
I agree, Paul.
Because Big B holds the position he does, his self-serving, deceiving sins of gratuitous “non serviam” have done egregious damage. May the Immaculate Heart of Mary Triumph, sooner rather than later.
Thank you. Therefore, the end goal of Francis’ governance is to… change the Church through the abuse of power because he believes the “spirit of Vat II” has arrived to finally get the Church on track after 2000 years?
Cultural Marxism?
“Part of building that heuristic will be recovering the core of theology as an essentially political enterprise, that is to say, one that is of its very nature necessarily concerned with ‘the things of the city’ that is the Church” (Altieri’s bottom line).
First mention of the Church as the City of God is found in Pope St Clement I [88-97] bottom line in his letter to the Corinthians. “For the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. Thus have they acted in the past and will continue to act in the future who live without regret as citizens in the City of God”. Heuristic, a hands on approach to learning is regrettably in process by this pontificate as if the Kerygma didn’t exist. Altieri of course addresses this although vaguely, at least not sufficiently accenting it in his essay. Politics within the Church cannot be separate from politics within the world insofar as design of a Mystical Body necessarily within the world.
Pope Saint Clement did perceive the Church as that shining city in the world as the exemplar for the world, whereas Francis’ design of the major impetus for Church renewal is an ongoing hands on Synod that is designed to reflect more of the world than Christ.
Actually, first mention of city of God may be attributed to King David Psalm 87, On the holy mountain is hi city cherished by the Lord…Of you are told glorious things O city of God. The image given in the psalm as a model and ‘Mother’ to all nations. Again reference to the Church as an example for the world, not an appendage of global secularism the path we’re apparently on.
In the interest of being concise, I would say to all of the above…
Huh?
I am not certain what the author is trying to say. But after a solid decade of Pope Francis’s consistently inconsistent comments it is by now undeniable that he is trying to change the Church into something it is not – and he is blasphemously trying to change the very Word of God into something it is not saying.
I am publicly saying what I believe – and I wish that Pope Francis had the honesty to do the same.
Thank you, Father, for saying publicly what needs to be said. I ask you, though, to reflect on what logically follows regarding a man who “after a solid decade . . . .is blasphemously trying to change the very Word of God into something it is not saying” since it is difficult to consider that such a man can be among “ómnibus orthodóxis, atque cathólicæ et apostólicæ fídei cultóribus.”.
And Father John, I am publicly saying that Pope Francis is the disciple and the Vicar that is very Christ-like. All the confusion is simply in the minds of his detractors who want things to go their way,
So your version of Christ would be sufficiently indifferent to the mass crushing of unborn lives to the point that He would leave their fate to the “conscience” of heads of state exercising political caprice? Just to touch upon one of dozens of issues regarding your idol.
If you had read Pope Francis’ views on abortion you would have known that the Vicar of Christ has repeatedly condemned abortion. He sees the face of Jesus in every child. He does not only hate abortion but also the indifference that is shown to starving people, including children. His pro-life views are not restricted to abortion. In case you do not yet know, Catholics are expected to discuss their problems with their priests and bishops.
“In case you do not know” (to repeat your patronizing verbiage), “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.” So, beyond “discuss,” what is the purpose? To actually “teach, govern and sanctify,” perhaps?
In one of his earlier and better moments (2009), even the now-Cardinal Gregory got this right: https://georgiabulletin.org/commentary/2009/10/teach-govern-sanctify-lords-people/
Is that why he endorses United Nations population control policies that promote abortion throughout the world? Is that why he enthusiastically supports the Chinese tyranny and their compulsory abortion policies? Is that why he welcomes the world’s most fanatical abortionists to lecture the former Pontifical Academy for Life? Is that why he suppressed any criticism of burying children alive at the Amazonian Summit? Did he see the face of Jesus in these terrified children buried alive?
[The Church is a polity – a societas perfecta – which means (I’ve said this all before, and noted it elsewhere not too long ago) “she has all the powers to order lives and regulate conduct necessary and conducive to a flourishing human community.”]
Not De Fide, even if it is a preferred theological opinion of some. Ecclesiology taken as dogma is the underlying problem.
My goodness – people are awfully cranky on this thread! Maybe the site being down for a couple of days has caused this testiness. Personally, I am used to Mr. Altieri’s style by now, so I am not particularly bothered by his work, even if I am usually somewhat underwhelmed by the conclusions he comes to. He seems to be a nice enough guy. As for Mr. Beaulieu, I’ll repeat the praise I offered a while back: I typically learn at least as much from his comments as I do from the articles to which they are posted. I won’t hold the credence he seemed to attach to climate change ideology a couple of weeks ago against him too much. No one bats a thousand.
Thank you, Tony W.
To clarify, I do not attach credence to “climate change ideology,” but do acknowledge the shift from ideological “global warming” to a very plausible “climate change” with both natural and anthropocentric causes.
Over the years I have changed my views. Most of my professional career had to do with human urbanization within natural ecosystems (Ph.D. in Urban and Regional Planning). Stated in less than its 43,000 words, I think the message of Laudato Si is actually a cultural warning that the liberal economic trajectory—on how to solve or outrun the human situation through the economics of abundance widely distributed—is in some ways a potential box canyon. That while the goodness of God is infinite, the goodness of nature is not. Extraction and dumping do get tangled up with system feedback loops and tipping points. The first law of ecology: there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
Thinking terrestrially and inter-generationally (JP II as well as Francis), we have this finite spaceship earth on loan from our descendants. What, then, does this mean in terms of our legacy for both the current generation and those who come after?
I propose that ideological environmentalists can be given some margin, but at the same time that moral absolutes, as affirmed by the Magisterium and explained in Veritatis Splendor, must not be marginalized or dismissed by trendy voices within the Church, in the name of some supposedly larger picture of proportionalism and consequentialism. Cupich’s disdain for the “rabbit hole” of abortion.
I would like to have more confidence that a new dicastery of Evangelization will have a two-fisted grip on such matters.
So what is Pope Francis’ “End Goal” of his Governance?
The End Goal: apparently to flatten governance into the mold of exaggerated synodality, and in moral theology to defer to subjective conscience and pastoral accommodation; and (as he has said very recently) to retire when called by God, not in Argentina (where his defense of convicted sex-abuse Bishop Zanchetta is still remembered), but rather in history’s former Eternal City as the “bishop of Rome” and nothing more.
Pope Francis does give us many clues. He said that no matter what problems we might have faced, or how low we might have gone we can always count on the mercy and grace of Jesus because he “wants to bring us to the most beautiful place that exists. He wants to bring us there with the little or great good that has been in our lives, because nothing is lost”. He did come to find the lost sheep, to heal the sick, and to redeem mankind.
https://www.ncregister.com/news/pope-francis-heaven-is-the-ultimate-goal-of-our-hope
The article and the comments are….well true I guess. But let’s say it plainly: Pope Francis is a modernist, who is more in line with World Economic Forum thinking than he is with Catholicism. He is ambiguous, but one thing he has stated clearly: we need to be a different Church. Not just the Pope of course, there are many who want a different Catholic Church (both Catholics and non-Catholics). For me the questions is how are we to respond? We are bound to obedience is what I hear on one side, and on the other, I hear that obedience has its limits. I suppose we can be obedient while we watch the Church being secularized. Is it possible to be both?
In the meantime, Secularization is the new religion, and the Pope is fully onboard. He wants to be friends with those who have priorities of LGBTQRSTUVW+ rights, climate change, identity politics and so on. Meanwhile he plays a coy game of not publically endorsing those like the German Church who want to fundamentally turn the Church into a nice little club where people come and get some kind of wafer and then afterwards talk about how nice it is to be accompanied on their journey towards God knows what. And all of us are struggling with just how are we to think and respond in this unfortunate reality. The last thing we need when we have an ambigous Pope is to have an ambiguous response.
A modernist? So someone who wants to take us back to the early days of tyhe Church is a modernist? Jesus gave us two parables on how we should live our “business” lives. In the Parable of the tenants, he tells us that the two workers who worked honestly and efficiently were praised, whereas the third one who did not was reprimanded. Then in the Parable of the Landlord (there are different names), this man goes about hiring laborers to do some work on his property. He pays them a decent wage. He does this throughout the day, even at the eleventh hour. He pays all of them the same decent wage. Why? These workers too had to support their families and so the Landlord, out of his generosity, paid them a living wage.
In other words, Jesus was telling us that regardless of the economic policy in place, the dignity and status of landlords and servants, bosses and workers, must be respected, and that love, care and concern for the others must reign in these relationships. Pope Francis says the same thing.