Vatican City, Aug 25, 2017 / 12:02 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- After his recent visit to Russia, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin said a key message of his overall “positive” trip was the crucial role the country plays in working for peace, which he voiced to President Vladimir Putin.
“I tried above all to say this, this was the message that I wanted to convey: that Russia, because of her geographic position, her history, her culture, her past and her present, has a great role to play in the international community, in the world,” Cardinal Parolin said Aug. 25.
Because of her role, Russia also has “a particular responsibility regarding peace,” he said, adding that “both the country and her leaders have a great responsibility regarding the building of peace and they must really strive to put the higher interests of peace above all other interests.”
Cardinal Parolin spoke to Alessandro Gisotti from the Secretariat for Communications after returning from his Aug. 21-24 visit to Russia, during which he met with leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church and civil authorities.
Having met with the Pope immediately after returning to Rome, Cardinal Parolin said Francis was happy to hear about the “positive result” of the visit to Russia.
Pope Francis, he said, “is very, very attentive to all opportunities for dialogue that there can be, he is very attentive to value all the dialogues we have and he is very happy when making steps in this direction.”
Overall, the cardinal said that for him, “the result of this trip is a very positive result and so my sentiments are, of course, sentiments of gratitude to the Lord for having accompanied me during these day.”
The meetings “were characterized by a climate of cordiality, a climate of listening, a climate of respect. I would define them as meaningful encounters, they were also constructive encounters,” he said.
In addition to sharing how he was moved by the faith and religiosity of the Russian people, both Catholic and Orthodox, Cardinal Parolin said many different issues were addressed, including Ukraine and Syria.
Suggestions for future areas of collaboration between not only the Holy See and Russia, but also the Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church, were also discussed, such as the release of prisoners in Ukraine, the restitution of Church property confiscated during the communist regime, and collaboration in providing humanitarian aid to Ukraine and the Middle East.
However, Cardinal Parolin stressed that the proposals made “must be verified and possibly implemented after an adequate discernment and study.”
Given the overall positive result of the visit, “I would say that in the end – to use this word – it was a useful trip, it was an interesting trip, it was a constructive trip.”
Below is CNA’s full English translation of the interview:
Q: Eminence, there was understandably great expectation for your visit to Russia. What sentiments do you have coming back to the Vatican?
I think the balance of this trip is a very positive balance and so my sentiments are, of course, sentiments of gratitude to the Lord for having accompanied me during these days. We were able to realize the program that was already fixed, to keep the scheduled encounters, and I have to say that these meetings – at the level of civil authority with President Putin and with the Minister of Foreign Affairs Lavrov, and then with the leaders of the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill and Metropolitan Hilarion – were characterized by a climate of cordiality, a climate of listening, a climate of respect. I would define them as meaningful encounters, they were also constructive encounters. I feel that I have to put a bit of emphasis on this word: “constructive encounters.” Of course, then, there was also the part of the encounter with the Catholic community. Above all thanks to the conversation and dialogue we had with the bishops in the nunciature, it was possible to know from a bit closer the reality, the life, of the Catholic community in Russia, her joys, her hopes, but also her challenges and the difficulties she has to face. For the latter, in part, it was possible to represent them, to expose them to the authorities. I cite one for all: the theme of the restitution of some churches that were confiscated during the time of the communist regime and for which there still has not been any restitution in the face of the need of the Catholic community to have adequate places of worship. So, I would say that in the end – to use this word – it was a useful trip, it was an interesting trip, it was a constructive trip.
Q: Have you already had the chance to speak with the Holy Father about the trip? What can you share about what you said?
Yes, naturally as soon as I returned I went to the Holy Father to give him a short, brief, concise account of both the contents and the results of the trip and naturally I conveyed the greetings that were given on the part of all parties I met, from the affection and closeness of the Catholic community, to the respectful greetings of the authorities. I remember that President Putin – I think it was also recorded in the public part of the meeting – underlined the living memory he keeps of his meetings with Pope Francis in 2013 and 2015. And then also the fraternal greeting of Patriarch Kirill. Of course the Pope was pleased with these impressions, of these positive results which I communicated; the Pope, as we know – he repeated also in this circumstance – is very, very attentive to all opportunities for dialogue that there can be, he is very attentive to value all the dialogues we have and he is very happy when making steps in this direction.
Q: What were the principle themes discussed in the meeting with Patriarch Kirill?
I would say that fundamentally we considered this new climate, this new atmosphere which reings in the relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church; this new climate, this new atmosphere which has been established in recent years and which, naturally, has had a particularly significant moment and strong acceleration thanks to the meeting in Havana between the Patriarch and the Pope, which this event followed. Truly, I noted from the part of both Orthodox interlocutors how they were moved by the experience of the visit of the relics of St. Nicholas of Bari to Moscow and St. Petersburg, but in the sense that they were touched by the faith and religiosity of the people. It was highlighted that as many Russians who belong to the Orthodox tradition but don’t practice, drew close to the Church on this occasion. It was truly a great event both in terms of size – there were two and a half million faithful who visited the relics – and in terms of the impact of faith and spirituality that this event produced. We then went through some of the steps that have been taken and those that will be, which ought to be the steps taken in the future. To me it seems that on their part, as naturally also on our part, they do not want to exhaust the potential that this new phase has opened, and naturally the collaboration can take place in various areas, at various levels: from cultural collaboration – academic – to humanitarian…this point was heavily stressed, that in front of the situations of conflict that exist in the world, the two Churches can really carry out an incisive and effective humanitarian work. Also touched on – with respect and at the same time frankness – themes that are a bit prickly in relations between the two Churches; however, we tried to give – at least in my opinion, what I took away – a rather positive sense, that is, to explore shared ways to tackle and to try to solve these problems. And of course even these shared paths, these concrete proposals that emerged must be verified and possibly implemented after an adequate discernment and study.
Q: Now, Eminence, regarding more sensitive themes: the question of Ukraine is one of the most delicate in relations between the Holy See and Russia. You visited Ukraine a year ago. Is there some news after your visit?
New, until now, there is none…perhaps it’s premature to think about something new. The Lord – we hope – will make it sprout and bear fruit, if there were those seeds of good that we tried to plant. However, as noted, the question of Ukraine is one of the issues of greatest concern for the Holy See: the Pope has spoken many times about this topic…It’s obvious that this could not be treated, this theme; it could not be forgotten in that circumstance. I would say that above all in the sense of trying to see, to evaluate, whether there were any concrete steps that could be made toward a lasting and just solution to the conflict, which are virtually the agreements reached between the two parties. And it is well known that the Holy See has first of all insisted on the humanitarian aspects starting with the Pope’s great initiative in Ukraine (last year’s collection). In this sense, for example, one of the themes is that of the freeing of prisoners: this is one of the “humanitarian” topics that could really be important in giving some impetus to the entire process, even politically, to get out of this stasis and and to advance – for example – the topic of the truce, the ceasefire, the topic of security conditions in the area, the topic, also, of the political conditions in order to make progress in the global solution. So we hope that something can help to walk in the right direction, taking into account – when we talk of solutions, of humanitarian issues – that we are speaking about people and speaking about suffering. And I think that this is what everyone must have in mind precisely to try to make an extra effort to go in the right direction.
Q: The media naturally gave a lot of attention to the encounter in Sochi with Vladimir Putin. How did the meeting with the Russian president go?
I would say that the meeting with President Putin enters a bit into the evaluation that I have at the beginning: it was a cordial meeting, it was a respectful meeting in which we were able to address the issues that at least we had in our hearts to discuss, such as, for example, the Middle East, the situation of Syria in particular, and in this context also the issue of the presence of Christians: we know that one of the coincidences that there are between Russia and the Holy See is precisely this attention to the situation of Christians, the theme of Christian persecution, which we tend to widen to all religious groups – naturally – and to all minorities, trying to involve even Muslims, as was done for example in that seminar that took place in Geneva last year. Then, on the topic of Ukraine, we have already spoken a bit; the theme of Venezuela: I saw that some media also reported some statements that were made in this sense. So, other than bilateral themes, which I mentioned at the beginning, we presented some situations of difficulty for the Catholic community. I tried above all to say this, this was the message that I wanted to convey: that Russia, because of her geographic position, her history, her culture, her past and her present, has a great role to play in the international community, in the world. A great role to play. And so it has a particular responsibility regarding peace: both the country and her leaders have a great responsibility regarding the building of peace and they must really strive to put the higher interests of peace above all other interests.
Q: Finally, Eminence, other than the most significant encounters, is there another moment or specific aspect you want to highlight?
Yes, there was the beautiful moment of Mass together with the Catholic community. The cathedral was crowded with people and it was a bit of a surprise, because it was a holiday, so that many people weren’t expected. Then, of course, the faith and devotion of this people always moves me: how the participate in Mass, with such attention, with such reverence, with such silence, they are present there. And I think that they came more than anything to express their attachment to the Pope and the fact of being members of the universal Church. So that was a nice moment. Another beautiful moment was the brief visit to the Sisters of Mother Teresa who work in Moscow. We were able to meet and greet the people they assist, even there it was shown a great affection toward the Pope. And then, the last thing that I want to recall: I was very impressed by the visit we made one evening to the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, the Orthodox cathedral of Moscow; the cathedral that was blown up during the communist regime. So it was also a moment to remember this painful history in the age in which they wanted to completely eradicate the faith from the hearts of believers and eliminate every dream of the presence of God and the Church in that land. Something they weren’t able to do, because God is greater than the projects of men.
[…]
Synod on Synodality…what nonsense.
Not an open issue, although with condition, at this time. Perhaps, further, “from an official point of view”. Nonetheless, a not uncommon diplomatic response weighing possibles v realities that can’t be criticized.
Sr Nathalie correctly lays priesthood aside. She doesn’t mention the diaconate, an ordained order of ecclesial authority in conjunction with the bishop and presbyter. Realistically, it is the diaconate that has been seriously considered since Amazonia. She had previously expressed her views on this more realistic possibility [realistic simply due to proposals for acceptance by some bishops] as shown here when asked.
“It’s still in discernment. It’s rather clear that during the early church we had the experience of the female diaconate. What is very obvious today is that it can’t only be men who can be in ministry. But there are many different ways to be in ministry” (RNS 12.8.21).
It may seem feasible for some as it did for me as a young layman teaching in Africa, knowledgeable of sisters including African who did the priest’s missionary work deep into remote, dangerous areas alone except with Christ. Teaching the Gospels, lecturing [preaching], carrying the Eucharist dispensed during a communion service. In places where there were no priests available.
Since then and ordination the unique specificity of holy orders, female ordination a more pronounced difficulty. Female deacons at the start assisted Paul, the great Apostle himself highly restrictive regarding women in Church, to be silent, heads covered. The women deacons [we don’t have records I’m aware of defining their exact role] whose assistance he happily accepted seems an anomaly. Cardinals Müller, Burke, and others believe holy orders must remain a male institution, as instituted by Christ The favorable response to that position is that Christ did not ordain women.
Nevertheless we’ve arrived at a time when women have received greater, and just recognition for their capacity to contribute to the mission of the Church.
The apostles called for seven MEN of good repute to be ordained deacons and to share in the ministry along with presbyters and episcopoi. I’m certain that if the apostles wanted to include women among their ranks they could have easily found one to include among the seven. But they didn’t.
Let’s face it, we live in a culture that attempts to create its own realities: men can call themselves women; women can call themselves men; men can attempt a marriage of another man and women do likewise. All sorts of permutations of weird notions get promulgated and the populace are easily hoodwinked into normalizing them.
Some of us just happen to subscribe to objective truths and realities.
Atheism is not merely a conscious rejection of an abstract disbelief in the concept of God. Since truth, not some, not a lot, not most, all truth is a reflection of the perfect mind of God, believing that truth changes is to be an atheist.
As a mere layman (sorry, I’m backward) it’s my understanding that the female
“Deacons” rather, assisted women in preparing for Baptism or Confirmation. It’s
so obvious that it would be an offense against modesty for men to do that. It’s so simple, so logical. And the Deacon’s job seems to have been to make sure all
the “dependents” (widows etc, who had no husbands or sons to protect them) were treated equally. When will we put aside all of this nonsense and end this need to satisfy the feminist passion for power. Women have been serving the Church for 2000 years; indeed, while our Lord was still among us. Apparently they were inferior because they didn’t demand parity. It’s time to bring back a bit of humility, and that includes many, many of the prelates (especially in Germany) and clergy too! Our dear Lord, King of kings, did not find serving demeaning.
Dear Father, with all due respect. You say in defense of the Church’s position… “Paul, the great Apostle himself highly restrictive regarding women in Church, to be silent, heads covered.” Without trying to be rude, that utterance by Paul is tantamount to Mafia men when they say of their women… “keep them barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen”.
Women suffered through history as objects, not as equal participants in God’s plan. My Mother not only wore a hat at Mass, rather a veiled hat. Moreover, As a MALE altar server, I was allowed on the altar, but she was not, except when she retrieved the altar linens to be laundered. As I think of those days I find it hard to sleep.
If it comes from paul it must be gospel.
Pray to the Blessed Mother that she will intervene and provide us with a united path to the future.
“For the Catholic Church at this moment, from an official point of view, it’s not an open question,”
.
Sooo, maybe at some future point then? This just doesn’t seem like a “No, that is not possible. Women cannot be priests,” kind of answer.
A woman cannot be, in essence, a Father.
I am sorry I wasted my time reading such a hodgepodge of gibberish. We can all sleep well tonight knowing that the question of women priests has been answered definitively by the French nun who so inspires the BBC and the overfed prelate in the background of the photo. “For the Catholic Church at this moment, from an official point of view, it’s not an open question.” What a ringing endorsement of Church teaching! Why is the question even being raised again when the answer has been given countless times since the crackpot idea first emerged out of the 1960s? Because Francis and his co-conspirators want to keep the issue alive.
Then the piece ends by quoting more inanities from Francis. Women do “better” in politics and management. Female economists “are renewing the economy in a constructive way.” Asking for evidence to support any of these grand assertions is presumably disrespectful. These are the people who run the Church.
I might revise you last sentence to read instead, “These are the people run the Church INTO THE GROUND.”
Janet Yellen is an economist; need I say more?
Isn’t there enough real work to do instead of spending all this time and energy (and money) on what exactly?
What Sr. Natalie (and Pope Francis) miss is that the Spirit calls Christians to sacred ordination, not the Institutional Church. The Church continues to live in its sin of exclusion, in contradiction to the Spirit’s call to women to ordination. To cite two centuries of this sinfulness as proof of its truth is convoluted. Most biblical scholars acknowledge that Paul’s diminishment of women in the Church were words added by later disciples afraid of rocking the boat of first century cultural norms.
There is agreement that he DID write, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Does the Church believe this?
Faithful Catholic women join the Spirit in groaning at the tragic doctrines expressed in this article.
Of course, you are here not thinking with the mind of the Church.
All this talk of ordaining women to the Order of Deacon is a ruse. Deacons are configured to Christ as servant Who came to serve and not to be served. These progressive feminists in the Church have spent their lifetime exorcising the demon of servitude. Rather, they lust for power in the Church and won’t be satisfied until they can get ordained as priests. And then, that lofty position in the hierarchy will not be enough to satisfy their lust for power and they will insist on being ordained bishop. But they won’t stop until one of them can get elected Pope. Of course, it wouldn’t be long before even that didn’t satisfy. No, the only path to salvation is: sacrifice, servitude, death to self, humility, piety, fear of the Lord, etc. These would not appeal to the feminist types.
One should remember. We don’t pick this profession. Speaking for myself I do believe I speak for the disciples as well….we don’t choose persecution and ministry. The calling comes from He that sent for us. I have no choice when it comes to following Jesus. He created me. Shaped me. I am obedient because I am. I am here. Awake. A servant to the calling. You don’t mess with the creator. Walking to the beat of His/Her/Their drum. I could speak about pronouns here and now. As teachers we might want to consider the value of “going there” so one can appreciate the pull we have at demonstrating the Importance of questioning our identity. If we are all God’s children, we should consider it was Jesus himself that told us to listen understand and obey the HS. If we are told to leave, go West, use OUR talents. If the HS leads us into the desert….we go!. I don’t say “no I’m a lady”. Jesus loved his ladies. Jesus calls ladies into healing the sick. The ladies might be called into service to Minister to another lady.
For that matter….we might also be lead into not revealing our sex so as to walk in obedience. God wants relationship with all of us. All the time. Yes, we might make mistakes. We are human. No crime. Pick up the cross ✝️ and experience all we were meant to experience. The disciples were told to bring their swords.
Keep your eyes up. Not back. Stand. Witness. And praise God we are here!
Maybe it was BECAUSE “Jesus loved his ladies” that HE (the fully Divine nature! and fully human nature, both) did NOT call them to be his apostles? And, most of all, he loved His mother (as if mothers still matter): because she was most like Himself—in her “fiat.”
But, there is a good side point about the use of “talents”….We are reminded, for example, of the legendary and female amazon archers who cut off their right breasts, such that their arrows could more sharply find their targets. But now females are signaled cut off both breasts, in order to transition more completely! Do we see a pattern here?…
Yes, the answer to actively homosexual priests (not the cover-story “pedophiles”) buggering young men has been a huge disaster, but now to lesbianize the Church (reducing it from sacramental incorporation into Christ, now simplistically to a lady “called in service to Minister to another lady”?) doesn’t cut it, either.
The “pattern”? Must everything be unisexualized under cover of the disordering pronoun thingy? “Keep your eyes up. Not back. Stand. Witness. And praise God we are here!”
“Here?” The new gospel: Entropy is God!
Finally, women can shed their burkas! Well, maybe not.
If rthe church is the bride of Christ then only men can be a priest.
If the current trajectory of societal convolution continues undisturbed per Newton’s laws of motion, we men, who’s roles have all been replaced and/or made completely redundant, have lost our place altogether.
It is interesting that the word “satan” (the accuser), in Latin, is satana, with a feminine suffix.