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.
[…]
I am close friends with a man I’ve known for over 40 years, who some 20-odd years ago stepped out of the dark abyss of the “G” faction of the “LBGTQ lifestyle,” which he inhabited for 15-20 years. He now suffers the ravages of STDs and AIDS, and knows he will die (too young) from these diseases.
He has returned to his childhood faith in Jesus Christ.
He speaks unambiguously about the evil, darkness and insanity of the pathology of sodomy. He says this: “It is insanity for adults to support or teach that it is OK for a man to inseminate the intestines of another man.”
That is his unambiguous message to his fellow man.
Oof.
But yes. Thank you.
Here’s my understanding about Catholic males of our species (XY-only chromosomes) – especially with reference to clerics like Martin, S. J., Cupich, McElroy, Tobin, Gregory, Fernandez, et al:
Men who would make good husbands and fathers would also make good deacons, priests and bishops. Likewise, men who are exemplary examples of good deacons, priests and bishops would have made exemplary husbands and fathers.
Similarly, men who are lousy husbands and fathers would make lousy deacons,priests and bishops and men who are lousy deacons, priests or bishops would have made make lousy husbands and fathers.
Think of the finest examples of clerics you’ve met over the years and you’d have to agree that they would have made good husbands and fathers. Now think of some of the worst clerics you’ve known and you’d have to agree that they would have made lousy husbands and fathers.
It just so happens that the same virtues that are needed for the clerical state are also needed for the married state.
For some reason, Saint Isaac Jogues comes to mind. He was deeply gratified to have received a dispensation from Pope Urban VIII so that he could continue to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass—despite having lost several fingers to the ferocity of those he tried to introduce to Christ. The underlying point is that Church discipline mandates that there should be certain perfections in the men called to the priesthood, reflecting the exalted demands of those entrusted with fatherhood.
Thank you as always Fr. Jerry for your clarity and charity.
Amoris Laetitia is an atomic bomb being set off inside Catholic morality. It seeks to blow up the Cross of Christ. The Way of Christ never enabled others to skip the Purgative Way. But it looks like our leaders are Hell-bent on trying. Your writing is a blast shield!
Cardinal Hollerich annual salary: ???,000
McCarrick Annual Income: ???,000 / million?
Wuerl Annual Income: ???,000 / million?
How much are you willing to take To Sell The Catholic Truth to the Prince of this World?
The Catholic Truth is entirely in the hands of the receivers.
A lack of clarity on moral precepts that were considered self-evident for decades is a form of social entropy with a million analyses, but there is little excuse for not being forceful at every encounter with moral sophistry that kills by pointing out that truth can never be evolutionary. It is not any stupid thesis/antithesis Hegelian process. Truth is a reflection of the eternal, perfect, unchanging mind of God, and man does not create any truth at all. To reject this truth about truth, is to be an atheist, no matter what religious delusions one might hold.
Refrain:
What difference homosexuality and bestiality?
It is not ambiguous.
The Holy Spirit is at work in the Church. The young priests are devout, orthodox and heroic.
Biology will rid us of these perverts in clerical costumes.
The Way, the Truth and the Life will prevail.
The Mystical Body of Christ staggers along a modernist Via Dolorosa.
It seems to me that the Satanic plan to undermine confidence in the foundation of Catholic faith–Holy Scripture and Tradition–has resulted in the abandonment of the doctrine of original sin and confidence in the clear and unambiguous teachings of Jesus on sexuality. I believe has been a serious mistake for the Church to have adopted the language and concepts of this worldly “wisdom” in defining a human being by one aspect of his or her nature. Obviously, disordered sexual desires are a consequence of our fallen nature for some, but it should not define our nature per se. It is also the case, I think, that there is a widespread belief within the Church of salvation that undermines confidence in Church teaching of dying in mortal sin and ignoring the plain teachings of Jesus on the narrow road to salvation and the broad road to destruction. The biblical modernists have done their work very effectively in undermining confidence in historicity of the Gospels. I have no doubt that God’s plan and purposes are being worked out, even if we do not see it.
lol, since when is the RCC -NOT- ambiguous? my devout catholic father literally believes that hell does not exist. if Catholics can’t even agree amongst themselves what is going on around the ontological dealio (something perfectly unsurprising considering God’s skill at hide and seek), what are the rest of us to think? I’ll be kind here, but in short it’s a bad look, to say the LEAST.
btw I did not read any of this piece.
If you didn’t read it, then don’t comment on it.
if you didn’t verify God, don’t preach Him.
Andrew, I think you’ve illustrated an example of the lack of catechesis for Catholics in your parents’ generation. And I think grandparents’ as well.
I have a dear auntie in her 80’s who is clueless about Church teaching on marriage & family. I suspect she was taught properly as a child but since then has depended upon popular culture to inform her. “The Gospel According to Oprah” sort of thing. If our shepherds don’t inform us, someone else will.
“invisible but wants to be your buddy”
uhhhhhh, yea I absolutely believe in that and “invisible but wants to be your buddy” is not even remotely confusing.
Believing that Jesus simply wants to be a buddy would be a result of poor catechesis to begin with. And He was hardly invisible.
Question for ya: Do you see love or its obverse, hate? Do you see infinity or eternity? We cannot see these entities, but we are fairly certain they exist, right? Applying the same logic to the being/existence/person/principle we arrive at God. Or do you believe the universe and everything alive within it arose randomly?
Don’t encourage or feed the troll please!
Catholics: God says this
Also Catholics: God says not-that
Default humans: uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh……
No man, had he not been Called to become a Good and Holy priest, would as a Good and Holy husband and father, ever condone the engaging in or affirmation of any act, including any sexual act, that regardless of the actors or the actors desires, are physically, psychologically, emotionally and spiritually harmful, and demean the inherent Dignity of a beloved son or daughter, and thus are not, and can never be an act of authentic Love.
All Catholics are called to be, in The Holy Name Of Jesus, “a counter cultural light” that shines in The Darkness illuminating The Sacred Heart Of Jesus. How then, can any Catholic Institution honestly claim that substituting “Pride”, which serves to exclude respect for The Sanctity of the marital act, within The Sacrament Of Holy Matrimony, for Christ’s Sacred Heart, in order to tolerate, accommodate, justify, and eventually mandate respect for the engaging in or affirmation of sexual acts, that regardless of the actors, or the actors desires, including if the actors are a man and woman, united in Marriage as husband and wife, are physically, psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually harmful, demeaning the inherent Dignity of every beloved son and daughter, and thus, due to the fact that these sexual acts are not and can never be, acts of authentic Life-affirming and Life-sustaining Love, can never serve for The Common Good or the Good of any beloved son or daughter.
Perfect Love does not divide, it multiplies, as in The Loaves And Fishes.
The Veil Has Been Lifted exposing those responsible for The Great Apostasy, those who Deny The Truth Of Perfect Love from the moment of Genesis. How can anyone who Loves Our Lord And Savior Jesus Christ not speak out?
“Woe to us!”
Regarding moral and doctrinal ambiguity, reordering human persons according to sexual desire/inclination/orientation, first and foremost, sexually objectifies the human person, in direct conflict with God’s Commandment Of Love, regarding lust and the sin of adultery.
Although it is not a sin to have a disordered inclination, it is a sin to not desire to overcome our disordered inclinations and become transformed through accepting Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy, available to those who desire to repent, serve our Penance, and Believe The Good News.
For if it were True that it is Loving and Merciful to remain in our sins, we would not need Our Savior, Jesus The Christ.
Reordering persons according to sexual desire/orientation/inclination, which sexually objectifies the human person in direct opposition to God’s Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery, is not of God, and does not serve God., and does not serve for the Good of any beloved son or daughter.
“4For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5Have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come…”, to not believe that Christ’s Sacrifice On The Cross will lead us to Salvation, but we must desire forgiveness for our sins, and accept Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy; believe in The Power And The Glory Of Salvation Love, and rejoice in the fact that No Greater Love Is There Than This, To Desire Salvation For One’s Beloved.
“Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.”
“To whom much has been given, much will be expected.”
I am so grateful for the clarity of Fr. Pokorsky’s article. Would that more priests and bishops who speak up about the obvious and evil agenda of the upcoming Synod.
Agreed. But the last ten years, which have driven millions of Catholics out of the Church, have driven those of us who remain Almost Mad. We cannot pray in good conscience for the Active Ministerium’s Intentions… For they appear Evil.
The world was not prepared for the weaponization of ambiguity consequent to Vatican II. (“Let your yes be yes and your no be no”). We now recogize it and call it out – the most relevant case here – the post-Amoria Laetitia Dubia of 2016. Keep up the pressure.
I think Jimmy Cliff said that best: “Let your yeah be yeah and your no be no now”
🙂
Thank you Fr. Pokorsky for your courage in defending the Gospel. Sadly, there are not many priests, bishops, and cardinals that are willing to stick their necks out these days. Of course, the same can be said about us, members of the laity. Thanks again, may God bless you.
Well said, Fr. Pokorsky
Am I a bad Christian because I feel a sense of visceral, spontaneous revulsion when I see pictures of James Martin and think about the error he represents and propagates? Just curious 🤔.
I’d like to think Christians feel the same way Christ feels when He sees Fr.Martin.
Since I don’t know how Christ FEELS I will have to rely on what He SAID. “Go and sin no more”, “Millstone around the neck”.:” Your SINS are forgiven you”…etc. In recent years, due to the press of secular culture and spinelessness of our clergy, ” anything goes” has become our low standard for behavior. Everything a person wants to do or believe ISN’T ok if it violates church law, not by a long-shot. And sins require repentance, not general approval under the fake guise of Christian Love and Charity. Too many people these days mistake Christianity for Socialism or communism. They are in fact, quite distinct things, no matter WHO is peddling that tripe. I find myself wondering why the pope gets SO angry about the Traditional Latin Mass ( which I have not seen in more than 40 years) and yet has nothing (NOTHING!!) to say to Pro-abortion Biden or sexual amorality proponent James Martin. One can “Love” a sinner without giving tacit or official approval to their sin.
If we as the Body of Christ are to emulate Him in charity I think your last sentence explains how to do that well.
The author is very polite and maybe even pastorally sensitive, but Catholic moral theology rejects the idea of a black/white perfect and neat set of rules. Augustine and Aquinas were very clear on that, that we have to continue to develop doctrine without respect for personal opinions or an agenda (on any side of the issue). Furthermore, scholars have long rejected the idea S&G were destroyed for homosexuality.
Share with us, O wise one, your encyclopedic knowledge of Aquinas and Augustine on these matters and identify these “scholars” whom you assert have proved that S & G were not destroyed for homosexuality.
when I set out to have a relationship with someone, the first thing I check is that the other individual is completely undetectable. That helps me to have a deeper relationship. If I can see you, then you are not playing hide and seek correctly. Hide and seek is paramount; it determines your eternal outcome. It’s very important that you guess God’s hiding spots strategically.
Times are changing. One cannot pretend to journey in the 21st century wearing gowns, costumes, and mindsets of the bygone centuries. Clarity is a rich concept to work with. It keeps evolving all the time. Clarity liberates us from being rooted and grounded in eternal rigidity. The Holy Spirit is at work. Praise the Lord now and forever.
“Times are changing. One cannot pretend to journey in the 21st century wearing gowns, costumes, and mindsets of the bygone centuries.”
********
The point is more about what is timeless & transcendent. Not about keeping up with the times. We can do that anywhere else.
Dear Dr Catejan,
If we are not rigid Catholics, rooted in Christ and the Sacred Doctrines of the Apostles as handed down the ages through the work of the Holy Ghost to 1958, we are lost souls blown about by the “Spirit of the Age” portrayed as a New Source of Revelation by the AntiChrist. Our souls are in grave danger from the “Spirit of Francis”.
Am Italian historian recently wrote:
The appointment of Monsignor Víctor Manuel Fernández as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has significant symbolic importance and represents, in a way, the culmination of Pope Francis’ pontificate. On November 24, 2022, when meeting with the members of the International Theological Commission, Pope Francis referred to those he called the “backward-looking” individuals within the Church.
The appointment of 21 cardinals, including Fernández, in the consistory preceding the opening of the Synod on Synodality in September, is another signal in this direction. Pope Francis wants to ensure that the direction he has set for the Church remains unchanged by his successor because “there is no going back.”
Is it then right to believe that Pope Francis’ recent choices express a radical rupture with the pontificates that came before him? …
For the historian, the reality is more complex. There have been multiple moments of departure from the Church’s tradition in the last sixty years, but the first and most significant change of perspective dates back to Pope John XXIII’s speech, Gaudet Mater Ecclesia, which opened the Second Vatican Council on October 11, 1962.
The tone of Pope Francis’ letter to the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith bears notable similarities in language and content to that document. In the central passage of Gaudet Mater Ecclesia, Pope John XXIII explained that the Vatican II was not called to condemn errors or formulate new dogmas but to present the traditional teaching of the Church in a language suitable for the modern times. He stated that “in the present time, the Bride of Christ prefers to use the medicine of mercy rather than to take up the arms of rigor; she thinks that it is necessary to meet the needs of the present day by explaining the validity of her teaching rather than by condemning (…). The deposit of Faith, that is, the truths contained in our venerable doctrine, is distinct from the way in which they are presented, always in the same sense and the same meaning. Great importance must be given to this method and, if necessary, applied with patience; that is, one must adopt the form of exposition that corresponds most to the Magisterium, whose nature is predominantly pastoral.”
Pope John XXIII attributed to the Council, which had just begun, a specific characteristic: its pastoral nature. Historians from the Bologna school defined the pastoral dimension of Vatican II as “constitutive.” The pastoral form became the form of Magisterium par excellence. At first, it was not evident to everyone, but in the following months and years, it became clear that Pope John XXIII’s speech was the manifesto of a new ecclesiology. According to progressive theologians, this ecclesiology should become the foundation of a new Church, opposed to the “Constantinian” Church of Pius XII. A Church no longer militant, definitive, and assertive, but itinerant and dialoguing: a synodal church.
In this new perspective, the Holy Office, which had been the Church’s bulwark against attacking errors for centuries, no longer had a reason to exist or had to change its mission. It is in this perspective that we find what happened on November 8, 1963, in the conciliar hall.
That day, Cardinal Archbishop of Cologne, Josef Frings (1887-1978), requested to speak and, to everyone’s surprise, launched a violent attack against the Holy Office, directed by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani (1890-1979). Frings publicly denounced the “immoral methods” of the Holy Office, stating that its procedure “no longer suits our times, harms the Church, and scandalizes many.”
Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani responded with a spirited intervention defending the mission of the Holy Office. “I feel obliged to raise a strong protest against what has been said against the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, whose Prefect is the Supreme Pontiff. The words spoken demonstrate a serious ignorance – I refrain, out of reverence, from using another term – of the procedure of the Holy Office.”
According to historian Monsignor Hubert Jedin, the clash between Frings and Ottaviani was “one of the most emotional scenes of the entire Council” (Chiesa della fede, Chiesa della storia, Morcelliana, Brescia 1972, p. 314). Josef Frings was not only the Archbishop of Cologne: he was the president of the German Episcopal Conference and one of the most authoritative representatives of the Central-European alliance of bishops opposing the conservative camp. Cardinal Ottaviani was the most eminent member of the Curia, heading a congregation described, for its primary importance, as “the Supreme,” of which the Pope and not Ottaviani was the Prefect. Nevertheless, Pope Paul VI did not publicly defend the Holy Office and effectively supported Frings’ position.
Three years later, in 1968, Cardinal Frings led the opposition of Central-European bishops against Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae. Professor Don Josef Ratzinger, who had been the inspirer and ghost-writer of Cardinal Frings during the Council, just as Monsignor Victor Fernández was for Pope Francis, began to distance himself from the more progressive wing of the Church, founding in 1972 the journal “Communio” with Hans von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac, and Walter Kasper. After being appointed Archbishop of Munich and Cardinal, he was named Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith by Pope John Paul II in 1981, a position he held for 24 years. The theologian of Cardinal Frings became the head of the congregation that Frings had publicly attacked during the Council.
Pope Paul VI closed the Second Vatican Council on December 8, 1965. The “reform” of the Curia was the first initiative of Pope Paul VI to implement the conciliar revolution initiated by Pope John XXIII. The curial edifice built over the centuries by previous Pontiffs was systematically demolished by Pope Paul VI. To begin, a symbolic event was required, and this was the transformation of the Congregation of the Holy Office, which was even renewed in name, on the eve of the Council’s closure, through the motu proprio Integrae Servandae. On the afternoon of December 6, 1965, L’Osservatore Romano published the decree that abolished the Index of Forbidden Books and transformed the Holy Office into the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stating that “it seems better now that the defense of faith takes place through the commitment to promote doctrine.”
Pope Paul VI appointed the Belgian theologian Charles Moeller (1912-1986), a champion of ecumenical progressivism, as the Undersecretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, pending the early resignation of Cardinal Ottaviani, which occurred on December 30, 1967.
“Moeller – wrote Father Yves-Marie Congar in his Diary – is ecumenism at 100%, openness to humanity, an interest in its research, culture, and dialogue (Diary of the Council (1960-1966), Cinisello Balsamo, 2005, vol. II, pp. 434-435).
The same Congar, on two occasions, in 1946 and 1954, urinated on the door of the Holy Office as a sign of contempt towards the supreme institution of the Church (Journal of a Theologian (1946-1954), Editions du Cerf, Paris 2000, pp. 88, 293). He was later made a cardinal by Pope John Paul II on November 26, 1994. This demonstrates how complex and sometimes paradoxical history can be, rich in events with symbolic significance, no less memorable than the appointment of Monsignor Fernández by Pope Francis.”
Is your entire post the writing of the Italian historian? Can you give the source?
Is this an exact translation? I question some of the characterizations. For example: VCII is referred to as a “revolution” which Pope John XXIII initiated. The pope himself certainly never referred to the council as a revolution, and I doubt many of the Church Fathers believed their purpose was to begin work on the implementation of such a process.
The Italian historian’s writing, in any event, is not germane.
The point is that Fernandez’ words are not clear. Because of their lack of clarity, and the ambiguous nature and problem with certain writing within AL, the faithful now question his faithfulness to Church doctrine.
To date, Church doctrine has reflected the authoritative truth of Christ and His teaching, taught by the authority of the Church, and necessary for the faithful to accept.
One who would change doctrine disavows his authority to truthfully speak of Christ. The faithful are not obliged to accept new or changed doctrinal teaching which contradicts what we believe (and the Church has promulgated and asserted for belief) as God’s true and authoritative teaching. The problem is clear, no?
The historian from whom I got entirely the piece is Roberto de Mattei. This is his official site: https://www.robertodemattei.it/en/. I received the article from his newsletter on Substack (the same platform is also mine, obviously far more irrelevant and available by CWR’s staff.)
Here are some hints: He was a student and assistant of philosopher Augusto del Noce. Above all, he considers himself, a disciple of Professor Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, with whom he had a personal friendship extending over a period of twenty years (1976-1995), and to whom he dedicated a biography.
Since 2005, as Associate Professor in the European University of Rome, where he is coordinator of the degree course in Historical Sciences, he has taught Modern History and the History of Christianity.
He is President of the Lepanto Foundation, as well as Founder and Director of the Lepanto Cultural Centre (1986-2006)
He directs the magazine “Radici Cristiane” and the “Corrispondenza Romana” News Agency, and was Director of the “Nova Historica” international journal from 2002 until 2013.
Between 2003-2011 he was Vice President of the Italian National Research Council (CNR) with responsibility for the sector of Human sciences between 2002-2006, as well as serving as the International Affairs Counsel for the Italian government during the same period.
He was also a member of the Board of Directors of the Italian Historical Institute for the Modern and Contemporary Era, of the Board of Directors of the Italian Geographical Institute, and member of the Board of Guarantors of the Italian Academy at Columbia University in New York (2005-2011).
He is the author of many books, that have been translated into several languages, and earned him an international reputation. So the Author is quite germane.
The sentence I translated with the word “revolution” is found in this one: “Paolo VI chiuse i lavori del Concilio Vaticano II l’8 dicembre 1965. La “riforma” della Curia, fu la prima iniziativa di Paolo VI per attuare la rivoluzione conciliare avviata da Giovanni XXIII.”
My opinion regarding Pope Francis is not the same as the Author’s, whom I have censored on one point, but that’s another matter.
Thank you very much for the attention.
What’s your point or question in a nutshell?
What you manage to illustrate is how easily many allow themselves to be manipulated to believe that prelates attacking strawmen that don’t exist serves no purpose other than to reward the vanity of those who want to assume their moral superiority is proved by their dissimilarity to those caricatures. It has never been the case that the Church advocated promoting morality without charity as Francis is so fond of claiming in his many falsifications of the past to justify a trivialization of the moral doctrines he simultaneously denies trivializing, so his more derisive remarks about attitudes that don’t exist can seem real and logically coherent, “museum pieces for the mentally ill.”
Catholics who are Catholic have always known, in spite of what dishonest theologians rewriting history like to say, that moral absolutes, “rigidly coherent,” are never a burden, hurtful, or contrary to mercy and never have been. They are gifts from God and always have. The truth sets us free and always has. The immutable moral order, that Francis flatly denies but Catholics believe, is what it is because it is the divinely endowed essence of our changeless human nature and the condition of our existence. There is no such thing as an infantile word like “backwardness” would imply. Truth never changes.
“When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.” – G.K. Chesterton
If I may add ever so little to the above another observation – the Reformation was a strike from withOUT; the Second Vatican Council was a strike from withIN. Therefore, when the church was shattered in the 1960’s council (as it certainly was) it wasn’t a “loosening” of the virtues earned by Trent as much as it was an INVERSION of the virtues. The transcendent became by force of internal pressure the imminent. The spiritual became by force of internal pressure the natural, and so on. Fast forward to today and the church herself, having willfully discarded her proper propriety has lost her identity and place in the world. She’s become an enemy to herself in many ways. She can no longer properly shepherd men like she could prior to the Council. She no longer speaks with the authority of eternity. She wanders now about the mundane, the climate, the border, the advance of “diversity, fraternity, inclusivity and equity”. She hasn’t just fallen from her proper and lofty place, she has thrown herself to the ground and seems content to stay there. Seek out those places within the church that still offer sanity, sanctity and proper propriety. Get to a Latin Mass! Reclaim your rightful Catholic inheritance. IT.MATTERS!
Unfortunately, Fr. These days, James Martin is visiting my beautiful country, Croatia, at the invitation of a bishop, and Timothy Radcliffe and the like are also participating in the theological meeting.