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.
[…]
It continues its careening, unabated hurtle towards the dung heap of history.
Pope Francis, with all due respect, has not an uncanny ability to shake off scandal. You omit to mention that the governing impression is induced by a complicit media. All of us Catholic individuals are fully aware of his failure to prosecute sexual abusers, his reinstatement of Cardinal McCarrick after Pope Benedict’s actions, the agreement brokered by McCarrick with the CCP, criticised by Cardinal Zen which has resulted in overt persecution of Chinese Catholics, his open persecution of traditional Catholics while ignoring the outright heresies promoted by the German bishops, his personal letters signalling support for the James Martin view of the Faith, … etc etc. it is simply that the main stream media wanted the Church to be rid of Pope Benedict (way too Catholic) and so accused him of manifest failings regarding sexual abuse – yes, the Pope who actively laicised hundreds of priests, known to be sexual abusers, was loudly threatened prosecution in the International courts. And when Francis affirms the agenda of the Germans and James Martin by his nod and wink and elevates known abusers to the Synod of the Family – not a word.
Regarding Francis and US Bishops, he has appointed 132 US Bishops younger than age 75, which is the age when they no longer can vote in the UCCB. There currently are 140 US Bishops younger than age 75, who were appointed before Francis. 12 of them are age 74, including Burke, and from large Diocese like Brooklyn, Newark and Philadelphia. 18 of them are age 73, including Neumann, DiNardo and Salazar, and from large dioceses like Los Angeles, Galveston-Houston and New Orleans. Of the 272 US Bishops younger than age 75, Francis’ current 132 Bishops shall become the majority 137 UCCB voting Bishops when Bishop Fitzgerald turns 75 on May 23. Francis has appointed 7 US Bishops ages 46 – 50; and 23 US Bishops ages 51-55. Expect future appointments of similar young Bishops, who shall vote for 20-25 years in the UCCB. Therefore, the days of the control of the USCCB by conservative Bishops are numbered. That shall become most evident in the 2024 UCCB elections when all of the now 30 age 73 and 74 Bishops appointed before Francis shall have turned age 75 and no longer shall be able to vote. These US “Francis Bishops” shall appoint “Francis Heads” of Seminaries, who shall appoint “Francis faculty,” who shall teach seminarians to become “Francis priests.”
*
To those utterly ineffective people who resent Francis, their impotent resentment of Francis is interesting because these powerless people “don’t have the numbers, and the House always wins.” And that is because, even for these amebic Authoritarians, the Pope “has full, SUPREME, and universal power over the WHOLE Church, a power which he can always exercise UNHINDERED.” Cathechism # 882. They are Sysephean Authoritarians who are “trumped” by Cathechismal Authority. How sweet that Papal irony is because these futile fellows, always male, are utterly unable to do anything about their Catholic future except to leave the Church by joining SSPX, which even Benedict stated “has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers. . . do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.” (March 10, 2009 Letter of Pope Benedict XVI.)
“Brian McDonough”, we’ve read your pitiful comments time and again, just under different names. They lack reality and charity. In your vision of the Church as a numbers game, you have the figures down-pat, but like the cynic, you know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
“To those utterly ineffective people who resent Francis, their impotent resentment of Francis is interesting because these powerless people “don’t have the numbers, and the House always wins.””
Well, Catholics – lay and lower clergy – have certainly had to impotently resent bad popes before. Sometimes, even multiple ones in a row.
We should still pray for such popes, of course.
You wouldn’t happen to be related to Anna N Amoz, would you?
You have posted this exact same response on multiple occasions on this site, usually as a reaction to valid and legitimate concerns regarding Francis’s papacy. Why are you repeatedly posting these talking points word for word? Who is paying you to troll this site?
Such a tiny, tiny man.
Thank you for your powerless resentment which shall have no effect on the future of Francis. Your impotent resentment ironically is exhibited by your adjective “tiny.” May your sterile resentment enjoy many more years of Francis, who now shall avoid retiring at all costs, since he now knows the full effect of having a retired Pope.
You advance impressive arguments for Orthodoxy.
Brian, Mc., I have doubts as to whether you are even Catholic, or even if so, whether you actively practice your faith. My guess is you’re simply a troll out for a bit of amusement. Nevertheless I prayed for an increase of faith, hope, and charity. Just for you.
We read: “Said simply and shortly: Francis has no allies at home, while the men who will choose his successor hardly know him or each other.”
Well, if the conclave cardinals do want to know each other, and especially the most likely candidates to succeed Pope Francis, then purposely available and very highly recommended is the thorough, balanced, readable, and incisive collection of bios for the likely papabili: Edward Pentin (editor), “The Next Pope: The Leading Cardinal Candidates” (Sophia Institute Press, 2020).
The two leading synodality operatives are not listed, and some would say that this is as it should be.
“The two leading synodality operatives are not listed, and some would say that this is as it should be.”
Good news, and yes. But that may be only because their candidacy would cause an immediate backlash due to the radical agendas they have been trying to implement. What is your sense of the possibility of a proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing being elected, meaning someone whose thinking is radical but who will fly under the radar so to speak? The possibility of another Francis basically?
As counterpoint Altieri makes readable the unlikely compatibility between Machiavelli’s Prince and Francis. Francis not the ideal. Far from it. Although he baffles the pundit, he manages to survive the expected backlash. And backlash in mountainous waves.
His Holiness has power, aggrandized power, at times monarchic power. “I do not need to answer. I’m the Pope!”, Francis to prefect Card Müller when asked why his best were summarily fired.
What Altieri perhaps misses is a different kind of Machiavellian prince, one who breaks all the rules of the game [and most importantly those of the Church] and still manages not only to survive, but reduce his traditional would be adversaries, men of rank to hat in hand obeisance.
“Pope Francis cannot reign forever”. That depends. There’s a strange spirit in the air. Makes one wonder.
This comment OMHO defines the reign of Pope Francis “Pope Francis has governed by the twin swords of fear and uncertainty.” neither of which is a virtue in any sense of the Word.
Fear and uncertainty in context of Altieri’s reference to Francis implies fear of being demoted and humiliated [Card DiNardo], or sent off to Siberia [Card Burke’s assignment to Malta], beleaguered, as with prefect CDF Card Müller mentioned above, although these men appear to be above hatred, but having righteous anger. Another meaning is doctrinal ambiguity by which bishops remain uncertain yet fear disobeying a Roman Pontiff if they don’t fall in line. Hatred, unfortunately is a self defeating response of some traditionalists.
Altieri gives a reasonable description of the Pontiff’s use of authority more monarchic than vicarious. And as you say not virtuous, rather exploitive. It’s not feasible to accrue and act with absolute authority, that which is reserved to the divinity and expect approval.
Your thoughts on the following comment would be appreciated:
“Pope Francis has governed by the twin swords of fear and uncertainty.”
My sense is that this is a fair and accurate assessment, even though it is not flattering. Francis’s fear of traditional liturgy and more traditional believers is inordinate and unjustified. At the same time, he seems to fear speaking in a direct way that challenges and potentially alienates his progressive base.
People who honor truth communicate with precision and clarity that leads to deep spiritual understanding and moral conviction. Francis’s pattern is calculated ambiguity, making vague statements that can be interpreted in different ways depending on his audience. This communication style raises legitimate questions about Francis’s motives and intentions. Why be intentionally vague if your intent is to speak truth and guide the flock?
Fear and uncertainty. A sad state of affairs indeed.
It seems that Pope Francis, from the moment of his “election”, chose the simplest of managerial strategies, and that is the one of dictatorship. The vow of obedience is something altogether missing from modern bodies politic. So, as a consequence, he threw any potential opposition off-balance from the get-go. This leaves two simple choices for the Catholic hierarchy, willful or painful and frustrating obedience, or assassination.
From the human experience of the past 20th century, with few exceptions, only the good are targets for the latter.
Interesting analysis. Am still wondering about the next conclave. Will there still be enough holy Cardinals to save holy mother church?
Place no faith in mortal man. Have faith alone in God.
Francis will one day be but a footnote in history. But he will bring that footnote with him into eternity. There, God will judge his stewardship of the Church because, after all, the Church is Christ’s Body.
To those utterly ineffective people who resent Francis, their impotent resentment of Francis is interesting …
Which tune do you whistle when you walk past the graveyard?
Might it be that the discontent is less about Pope Francis than it is his actions and an institutional one?
In a recent interview Archbishop Chaput suggests that the pope, as a Jesuit, is governing the Church more as a Jesuit General within the top-down Jesuit Order, than as a pope in collegial responsibility with his curia and bishops–the “hierarchical communion” articulated by the real and jettisoned Second Vatican Council. https://www.pillarcatholic.com/chaput-speaking-the-truth-is-polarizing/
While the synodal block party is seemingly well-intended to foster a more harmonious fabric between clergy and laity, hasn’t it devolved into plebiscite replacing of the former by the latter? Again, the governance thing rather than a personal resentment?
As for the synodal maestros selected by the pope, you just can’t get good help these days!
And as for the tune “whistle[d]” past the graveyard, how about “When the saints go marching in”? But, “saints,” what’s that?
I view the various attempts at creating a Vox pop religion as a means to circumvent the Magesterium of the Church. While this is disconcerting, it in many ways reaffirms the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church and her infallibility. That is, the Pope, by his infallibility, is subject to the Truth. He cannot openly flaunt the 2,000 year Truths of the Faith as handed to us by Christ. He risks, if making a positive declaration that cuts across the Truth of Christ, deposition as a heretic. All he can do is feign an inquisition of the people to justify his actions which go against tradition- the ‘survey of the bishops’ and its use to base the single-handed attempt to abolish the Latin Mass is an example. The Synod on Synodality is another transparent attempt to harness the tame voices to implement the changes desired in order to appease his masters. It reveals that the secular supporters of Francis understand how to politically manipulate, but are uncomprehending the divine nature of Holy Mother Church.
“Pope Francis cannot reign forever”. That depends. There’s a strange spirit in the air. Makes one wonder. Translation, Whether what afflicts the Church today will transcend this pontificate into the future.
I hate to seem pessimistic, but I have a difficult time thinking of how the ship will right itself. The spirit of the age is powerful, and the corruption runs deep.
Perhaps realistic best describes our response, so as to act with right purpose and support for others. But yes, it doesn’t appear hopeful for the future. Faith and confidence will carry us through whatever transpires. Hope, in the ordinary sense, is surpassed by its theological meaning, trust in Christ’s promises. Benedict spoke in that respect recently, his concern for the Church, his reliance on Our Lord’s command.
Given that the pope has full authority over the church, what’s to stop him from simply naming his own successor, thus forestalling the need for a conclave?
The anti Francis sentiment often expressed by many posting comments in many aspects reflects an American centric miopic perspective influenced by American exceptionalism and attitudes that seem to flow from an imperialist mindset.
imperialism, state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas
It revealing that the most sophistic and shallow criticisms of “anti-Francis sentiment” point to politics while being emphatically political in their analysis (such as it is). And, of course, they are crudely anti-American, to a degree that is simply laughable.
There is a spectrum of criticisms of Pope Francis, and many criticisms are simplistic and rather ridiculous, such as those that simply label him a “Marxist” or “Free Mason”.
The criticisms and concerns expressed here at CWR over the years have been primarily theological in nature, with an eye toward the pontiff’s fairly obvious reliance on force of personality and authoritarian tactics/rhetoric. I think the two are essentially related in various ways, although that relationship is certainly complex. Pope Francis has made it clear that he has little interest in theology or the finer points of doctrine; he emphasizes the pastoral. But, of course, all pastoral work is rooted in dogma and doctrine, and is essentially theological, even if many Catholics refuse to see the relationship. I also think (and plenty of examples could be given as evidence) that Francis is a very sentimental man; his emotions often drive the doctrinal/praxis bus(es). There is a certain chaotic nature to how he addresses challenges and issues, sometimes to the point of incoherence.
My own theological heroes (as can be seen from my 25 years of writing) are Polish (JPII), German (Ratzinger), Italian (Aquinas, Guardini), French (de Lubac, Danielou, Bouyer), English (Chesterton, Newman, Sheed), and so forth. My American theological heroes (Sheen, Schindler, Merton) are all very critical of the U.S. in various ways, and certainly aren’t “American centric” or “imperialist” in the least.
But, that said, I get that it’s easier just to use a blunt tool or a shotgun blast than to engage with reasonable criticisms and serious concerns.
I think that critics such as this chap have very little defence and so resort to the time-honoured weapon of personal attack. It seems to have pervaded the whole of society to the extent that reasoned discussion is totally exceptional. That being said, can you imagine any reasoned defence of Pope Francis’ time-line of actions?
• Elevation of Cardinal Daneels – on the balcony at his election and as head of the Synod of the Family after taped evidence of his suppression of evidence of sexual abuse;
•Reinstatement of Cardinal McCarrick after Pope Benedict’s actions to marginalise him;
• Cardinal MacCarrick’s negotiations for the agreement with the CCP, by which, according to people who seem to know, including Cardinal Zen, the persecution of Chinese Catholics has been effected, without comment or criticism from the Vatican and its renewal;
• persecution of traditional Catholics and the attempted suppression of the traditional liturgy (a major impediment to modernist fuzziness);
• a nod and wink to all Catholics to persecute and marginalise traditional Catholics as ‘divisive’ when, by that very act, he has created division;
• failure to prosecute a large number of sexual abusers – this failure alleviated only under the glare of the media;
• stories of Vatican orgies and use of rent boys during his watch;
• the endless financial corruption;
• the nod to the James Martin view of Catholicism, with personal letters thanking for ‘gifts of socks’ designed to send messages to those who promote a new Church moving with the times;
• no action done regarding the German bishops – in the face of persecution of the traditional Catholics.
That’s all I can think of off the top of my head – I would be interested in any reasoned defence of any of these points by those who have resorted to personal attack.
An eloquent dismissal Carl.
Church politics based on positioning related to differing theological emphasis can indeed be imperialistic in nature. Furthermore many express their faith in terms of ‘God is who we say he is’ and others are erroneous and should be pushed aside’ In many ways taken far enough and to the extreme this can and does evolve into an expression of a mindset that is proclaiming ‘hey everyone this is our God not yours! We own God and you lot can go to hell! A nuanced take on God made in the image of man.
It goes without saying there are quite a few of such examples scattered throughout history. However this mindset has more subtle forms of expression and this is what I’m referring to.
Add to this the reality of the utter disaster that are the natural and logical consequences of the erudite theologian or leader of the church enunciating and enforcing correct dogma who when asked for a loaf of bread hands over a stone! With respect to the the mission of the church and the message or whiteness sent to the world, of who the God is that we worship I have seen this far too often in my journey. It is perceived by me as a form of character assassination directed at the person of Jesus.
Your post is a fitting example of the pot calling the kettle black. You were quite heavy handed and imperialistic in making false accusations against George Pell in spite of evidence supporting his innocence. Bearing false witness was a fairly serious sin, last time I checked. It might be wise for you to let us worry about the States while you attend to getting your own moral and spiritual house in order. There’s enough there to keep you occupied for quite some time.
Athanasius,
Your consistent unsubstantiated misrepresentations of my stated convictions have lead me to mistrust of your motivations and to doubt your desire for genuine honest discourse. I have tried reasonable reply and rebuttal along with links to trusted and verifiable outside sources of information where I see the need. Recently you didn’t have the decency to respond to my post in this discussion:
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/01/11/jesuits-in-slovenia-apologize-for-rupnik-abuse-say-they-believe-victims/
One of many examples of carefully choosing your battle along with the many times you openly accuse me of lying and sinfulness with no attempt to verify the legitimacy of your comment in the context of the discussion. I now see it counterproductive to engage any further in reply to your disingenuous provocation.
Dear Carl:
In respect to Papa, should there be such a steady stream of admonishment on diverse matters? Pastoral ministry should be according to the teachings of Christ, not to mention the gift of preaching or church administration.
Is Papa in line with church doctrine many will ask? This is not an isolated question.
A cultural Marxist, aka, the politically correct, proposes their view of critical theory which is in stark opposition to the views of the church. The church proclaims freedom in Christ (freedom to worship in spirit and truth). We might review the proclamations of Papa and see how he is upholding church tradition!
CWR aims for a faithfully Catholic perspective which is important. Those responding to articles want to strengthen the Church and proclaim godliness. When there is such an outcry against this popes focus, CWR is a vital link in proclaiming the eternal truth of Jesus Christ.
Yours,
Brian Y
You prefer to call it “anti-Francis sentiment.” I prefer to call it a “pro-truth mindset.”
CWR has an international reach. Almost 95% of the comments surrounding Papa, rebuke his lack of leadership, autocratic approach and disregard for church tradition and God’s word.
CWR attracts people of faith and Papa is chided because people find shortcomings that bring little favour to most of his day to day pronouncements. It is not conforming to Papa, rather it is “According to Christ”.
Where does the Francis Pontificate go from here? Down the drain of history, where it belongs.
Do not despair. The young families with many children who reverently attend the Traditional Latin Mass, with missals. rosaries, and served by young priests, will insure the maintenance of the Catholic Faith
Yes, demographics rule. Always.
The beautiful sound of many babies crying during the TLM at my parish confirm this.
TBTG.