Vatican City, Aug 21, 2017 / 04:11 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- As he arrived to Russia for his official three-day visit, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin said the Holy See has a special role on the global scene given its attention to both spiritual and diplomatic themes.
“The Holy See simultaneously performs both a spiritual and a diplomatic role,” Cardinal Parolin said in an Aug. 20 interview with Russian news agency TASS. “That is why the Vatican diplomacy is of special nature.”
“It does not rely on any other force, except for taking care of every person and every nation through dialogue,” he said, adding that with these aspects in mind, discussion with his Russian counterparts will focus on “the issues which are of mutual interest for us, as well as crises in different parts of the world, which are both distant and very near.”
The meeting with Patirarch Kirill, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, in particular serves as proof of the openness that has come as a result of his historic meeting with Pope Francis in Havana last year, Parolin said, noting how both Kirill a nd Francis “spoke of rapprochement as a shared path.”
“When we walk this path together and conduct fraternal dialogue, we can feel the moments of unity. This path requires the search for truth, as well as love, patience, persistence and determination.”
Cardinal Parolin spoke to TASS the day before his official Aug. 21-24 visit to Russia, during which he is set to meet with several heavy-hitters including Patriarch Kirill, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and several other high-level members of the Russian Orthodox Church.
The interview touched not only on the Holy See’s diplomatic task, but it also focused largely on relations between the Catholic and Russian Orthodox Churches, specifically in terms of preserving traditional Christian values. Parolin also spoke of U.S. President Donald Trump’s policies so far during his brief tenure, and the ongoing crisis in Venezuela.
Traveling with Parolin as part of his official delegation is Msgr. Visvaldas Kulbokas, adviser to the apostolic nunciature of Russia and an official in the Relations with States section of the Vatican’s Secretariat of State.
On Aug. 21, the first day of this visit, Parolin met with the Catholic cardinals and bishops of Russia, and in the evening presided over Mass at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Moscow, after which he held a friendly encounter with clergy and the laity.
He also met with Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, President of the Department for External Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate.
Tomorrow morning, Aug. 22, is dedicated to a working session with Russia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov, while in the evening Parolin will meet with Patriarch Kirill, and will hold a brief press conference afterward.
On Wednesday, Aug. 23, the last day of his visit, Cardinal Parolin will head to Sochi for his official meeting with President Putin. No other official meetings are on the schedule before the cardinal returns to Rome Aug. 24.
In his interview with TASS, Cardinal Parolin said the Vatican has been “working on the idea of the visit to Russia for a long time,” and that it is finally possible largely as a result of the February 2016 meeting between Pope Francis and Kirill.
“That meeting was the first step that had been expected for a long time,” he said. Not only did it strengthen contracts between representatives of the Catholic and Russian Orthodox Churches, “which became more frequent and filled with concrete content,” but it also prompted the churches “to look at the discrepancies we had in the past and their causes in a new way.”
Although tensions can still be felt as the result of differing opinions on various issues, Parolin said Francis and Kirill’s meeting “helped us see the unity we are striving for, the unity which is required by the Gospels we profess.”
“It is very important that we have this renewed mutual positive view that every servant of the God, priest and believer will share,” he said, stressing that in his opinion, this is the condition “for the fulfillment of new and, I would say, unprecedented steps in the development of the ecumenical dialogue and the rapprochement of our Churches.”
When asked how their Churches can work together to preserve traditional values and not impede efforts for modern democracy, Parolin noted that unfortunately “there is no shortage of challenges that the modern world produces.”
It’s not just about preserving values so much as “the very concept of human personality and human dignity,” he said, pointing to the specific challenges presented by showing respect for humanity and his work, striving for social justice, interpersonal relations and relations among States.
“These are all challenges of a peaceful existence,” the cardinal said, noting that when their Churches insist on following the Gospel and upholding the values found in scripture, “they do so not to humiliate a modern person or to put unnecessary pressure on him but to show the path to salvation and fulfillment.”
“When performing this mission, which never ends, it is extremely important to establish effective cooperation between different religious denominations,” he said, adding that greater mutual understanding between Churches and the exchange of experiences “may become an important contribution to understanding of these problems.”
Pointing to the Catholic Church’s decision to “loan” relics of the well-loved Orthodox Saint Nicholas, consisting of several bone fragments currently housed in Bari, to Russia over the summer, Parolin said the gesture served as a “spiritual uplift” of sorts for the Russian Orthodox Church.
“There is no doubt that this event and other similar initiatives, which can be called the ‘ecumenism of the saints,’ give an opportunity to fully feel what already unites Christians,” he said.
The relics were sent from Bari to the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow from May 22-July 12, and were venerated by President Putin and thousands of Orthodox faithful.
Not only was the event important for the spiritual life of believers, but it also served as an example for future initiatives and gave “a new impetus” to dialogue on “more complex” issues in Church relations, he said.
When it comes to fighting terrorism, Parolin said there are two important factors to keep in mind, the first being the decisions on the part of governments “which are often dictated by concrete situations.”
“When one faces a situation of this kind, one has to make a certain choice based on the politicians’ assessments,” he said. “No doubt, the need to tackle terrorism is evident for the Church, but all actions must be weighted in order to prevent a situation in which the use of force would trigger spiraling violence or lead to violations of human rights, including the freedom of religion.”
On the other hand, the Church is always guided by a “long-term perspective,” he said, which first of all involves fostering personal development, particularly among younger generations, as well as “solid dialogue between religions.”
“During the past decades, the Holy See has been making all possible efforts to establish, strengthen or restore dialogue on the cultural and religious levels and in the social and humanitarian sphere,” the cardinal said, adding that he is “absolutely convinced that life under the guidance of the Gospel would in itself make an important contribution into forming the society and culture.”
Asked about some of U.S. President Donald Trump’s controversial policies since taking office, including his decision to pull out of the 2016 Paris Climate agreement, and what the Vatican expects from Trump, Parolin voiced hope that the two States can move forward in mutual respect.
The meeting in May between Pope Francis and Trump “was held in the atmosphere of mutual respect and I would say, with mutual sincerity” in which both men were able to voice their thoughts and concerns.
Parolin voiced his hope that despite Trump’s determination to “fulfill the electoral promises” and despite Washington’s withdrawal from the Paris accord, “pragmatic approaches will prevail in continuation to the US administration’s decision to keep the climate change discussion running.”
“We, in our turn, can only wish that President Trump, just like other members of the international community, does not neglect the extremely difficult task of tackling the global warming and its negative consequences.”
The cardinal then said that in his opinion, international relations are “increasingly dominated” by policies and strategies “based on open clashes and confrontations.”
Describing this phenomena as a “’dialogue of the deaf,’ or, worse, (policies that) fuel fears and are based on intimidation with nuclear or chemical weapons,” Parolin said he believes there is a common realization that such approaches “do not lead to correct solutions and fail to ease tensions between states.”
He pointed to how Pope Francis’ insistence that “building peace is a path,” explaining that this path “is a lot thornier than war and conflict.”
“Building peace requires a patient and constructive dialogue with mutual respect instead of focusing all attention to own national interests,” Parolin said. “This is all that is expected from the leaders of global powers.”
[…]
“Sins, however great and detestable they may be, are looked upon as trivial, or as not sins at all, when men get accustomed to them; and so far does this go, that such sins are not only not concealed, but are boasted of, and published far and wide…Woe to the sins of men! for it is only when we are not accustomed to them that we shrink from them: when once we are accustomed to them, though the blood of the Son of God was poured out to wash them away, though they are so great that the kingdom of God is wholly shut against them, constant familiarity leads to the toleration of them all, and habitual toleration leads to the practice of many of them…(I shall see whether the extravagance of grief did not betray me into rashness of speech)”. St. Augustine, The Enchiridion, Ch. 80
St. Augustine, pray for Bishop Strickland, your less eloquent but equally “rash” apostolic brother.
This sharing was such a gift. It explains familiarity is so powerful for us falling into sin. Mary
How about another? “Carnal lust reigns where there is not the love of God.” St. Augustine, The Enchiridion, Ch. 117
Note to editor. The letter could not have been published in full Nov 25.
With Card Parolin’s Nov 24 letter citing sanctions if doctrine on women’s ordination and homosexually are not observed, this added strength to Pope Francis’ previous milder letter is the most noteworthy of all the previous admonitions. If, hopefully the Vatican follows through there’s reason for a guarded restoration of trust.
Germany is 6 hours ahead of NYC, so the Card Parolin letter may have just been published by Tagepost Nov 26.
Wait a minute!
What about the “listening”? The “walking together”? The “development”? The “radical inclusivity”?
If the Holy Spirit is driving this Synod, who is Bergoglio to judge the results?
Polygamous marriages? Why not?
Baptizing pets? For sure!
Indulgences for wearing liederhosen? Wunderbar!
Bergoglio has told us that the Synods are about being in tune with the Holy Spirit, even if He takes us out of our comfort zones.
So then how can Bergoglio possibly object now?
I told you there was nothing to worry about. When are you all going to learn: God is in control!
Yes God is in control, but wish He would act quicker. Us humans with the freedom He allows us to have mess things up way too much.
So you reckon you know better than God when and what to allow according to His wisdom?
You might need to reas His response to Job.
So true. After a decade of this pontificate, I was starting to think Christ was the Pope’s Vicar.
Yes, God is in control.
Synodaling is an eminently popular movement. Every political clique is opposed to the popular interests and, therefore, it cannot be a Synodalist organization.
A Synodalist must be at the service of the cause. He who invoking the name of this cause is really at the service of a political clique or a “caudillo” (local political leader) is only a Synodalist by name.
No Synodalist should presume to be more than he really is, nor should he adopt a position inferior to what his social status should be. When a Synodalist starts to think that he is more important than he really is, he is about to become one of the oligarchy.
Now that we have been mollified with the reaffirmation of a bit of basic Church teaching, does this prevent the post-Synodaling promulgation of a prayer to welcome with mercy those in irregular unions? The Joy of Love Invocation? It need not mention sin. Or does this prevent the creation of a new female form of minister? Perhaps even the restoration of lay Cardinals? They could be called Cardinal Ministers?
This pontificate is a gift to develop our understanding of the bare minimum required to uphold papal infallibility.
Bishop Barron’s ‘frank’ disagreement with the Synod on Synodality’s final report, that “advances in the sciences require an evolution in the Church’s moral teaching on human sexuality” underscores an irony. Ironic in that if Pope Francis and Card Parolin are prepared to sanction the Synodale Weg German Bishops on female ordination and homosexuality, the latter noted here, then what are they to make of the Synod on Synodality’s agreement with the German Synod? Obviously, they must be consistent and oppose both Synods’ errors of judgment [please disregard my mistakes on the dates of the letter warning the German Bishops of sanction].
From the 2023 Synod Synthesis Report, two items to watch for in Synod 2024:
Part II: 9(n). “Theological and pastoral research on the access of women to the diaconate should be continued [….]” possibly to be “presented to the next Session of the Assembly.”
Wiggle room? Will the Assembly now agonize over whether possibly “ordained” female diaconates can be separated from the three-level male ordination of deacons/priests/bishops? The history already has been demonstrated that early “deaconesses” were not a sacramental ministry. More synodal research?
Part III: 16(p). A proposed “ministry of listening and accompaniment” partly for (16 h): “…people who feel marginalized or excluded from the Church because of their marriage status, identity or sexuality [….].”
As of 2017, Fr. James Martin, a delegate to Synod 2023, is already a consultant to the Vatican’s Dicastery on Communication. No doubt he feels well-groomed for further elevation into the new ministry.
Or, instead and moving forward, might the Synod more inclusively (!) rediscover the compassionate and truthful 1986 Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
Apparently Ratzinger’s 1986 Letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church on Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons was intended to correct the ‘suggestion of permissibility’ of adult, stable homosexual relations.
“In regard to this second category of subjects [homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct], some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life. In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people” (VIII. Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. PERSONA HUMANA. DECLARATION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS CONCERNING SEXUAL ETHICS. Franjo Cardinal Seper Prefect. 1975).
Although the letter goes on to say such relationships cannot justify homosexual acts, its tone gives the impression of justifying the relationship. The 1986 document is unequivocal. During the present pontificate some prominent clergy who favor normalcy of adult homosexual relations have referenced the 1975 document. As we know a major issue regarding the mitigation of intrinsic evil within the Church involves clerics who favor that normalcy.
Yes, reduced culpability does not overturn moral theology. But, of “homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct”…what might this presumption actually mean?
FIRST, how is it that the number of instinctive and anti-binary homosexuals is rapidly leapfrogging into larger digits, such that the predisposition is mysteriously spreading by, obviously, some means other than biological transmission and inheritance?
SECOND, what of heterosexuals who are not married, and yet feel themselves ‘incapable of enduring a solitary life?” A still broader rewrite of exemptions from moral theology? Equity!
THIRD, actual genome research rules out a gay gene, although there are five “markers” which still are not sufficient to determine the choice of actual behavior. https://news.yahoo.com/no-gay-gene-study-finds-180220669.html
FOURTH, apparently the “instinct” is a function of epigenetics, an shaper comparable to the way computer software manages the computer hard drive (genetics). But, like software, the erroneous and victimizing software can be rewritten. https://www.stossbooks.com/open-letter-to-german-episcopate.html#NewScience_ApplyBrakes Courage International should not have been excluded from Synod 2023 in preference to Fr. James Martin, SJ.
FIFTH, what then about such factors as absentee or abusive fathers, early sexual abuse, or early sexual experimentation and a porn culture? Will guru Hollerich now reveal his undisclosed “sociological and cultural foundations” for upending innate and universal natural law and, therefore, Church teachings? (Instead, “The Church is no way [!] the author or the arbiter of this [‘moral’] norm” [Veritatis Splendor, n. 95]).
SIXTH, we can gain insight from a celebrated bisexual novelist from within the LGBTQ community itself [sic political coalition]. This assessment of Andre Gide, by one of his biographers, on getting locked-in [!] by early experimentation:
“[Gide] emphatically protests that he has not a word to say against marriage and reproduction (but then) suggests that it would be of benefit to an adolescent, before his desires are fixed, to have a love affair with an older man, instead of with a woman. . . the general principle admitted by Gide, elsewhere in his treatise, that sexual practice tends to stabilize in the direction where it has first found satisfaction; to inoculate a youth with homosexual tastes [!] seems an odd way to prepare him for matrimony [better to simply redefine “marriage”!] (Harold March, “Gide and the Hound of Heaven,” 1952).
__________________
Responding to the recent instructions to der Synodale Weg, what will Synod 2024 “experts” now say that is preventive of sexual derailment; that is, supportive of families, parental responsibilities, and sexual morality; and, that transcends the tail spinning “signs of the times”?
Good response. The notion, “definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct” is oxymoronic, so broadly stated that it doesn’t define the condition. Almost all homosexuals are inclined to say they were born that way, whereas there’s evidence that it is adoptive [elective] behavior.
There are, however, scientifically verified rare accidents of nature, as Aquinas would say. Your allusion to elective behavior is seen by the many who are suddenly appearing analogously likened to spontaneous combustion. We find the phenomenon throughout history and where it becomes prevalent the culture collapses within itself.
What seems to be the case over and over again is that PF refuses to produce or provide clarity. All these various strains of his thought wending their way through the church without clarification are causing confusion at best or mayhem, at worse. I wish that our pope would offer some much needed clarity. Where are his answers to the dubia? The problem is that he refuses to reach to any documents that are any older (and more clear) than those produced during the 1960’s. The synod seems to have been an exercise in muddying the waters; even further degrading the role of the consecrated. Anyone excited about pursuing priesthood these days has to reconcile the changing identity and importance of the priestly office itself. The safe harbor during all this experimentation, cognitive dissonance and cacophony seems to be the pre-1960’s church and one committed to the Council of Trent. Thank you God for that compass! I can only hope that the crew of the Barque would pick it up and use it as the sextant it needs to navigate the waves of this modern world. V2 and the synod seem useless — look at the “fruit”.
“The safe harbor during all this experimentation, cognitive dissonance and cacophony seems to be the pre-1960’s church and one committed to the Council of Trent. Thank you God for that compass! I can only hope that the crew of the Barque would pick it up and use it as the sextant it needs to navigate the waves of this modern world.”
From the prophecies of Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser regarding “the fifth period of the Church” (commencing AD 1520):
“During this period the Wisdom of God guides the Church in several ways: 1) by chastising the Church so that riches may not corrupt her completely; 2) by interposing the Council of Trent like a light in the darkness so that the Christians who see the light may know what to believe…”
Regarding PF’s refusal “to produce or provide clarity,” I believe Fr. George Rutler once remarked that one looks to Francis for a train of thought but finds a train wreck.
M. Tabish:
Some very fine insights. Compare the basic modus operandi of Francis with what is set forth about a primary obligation of any faithful pope by the saintly Pius X at the very beginning of his prescient and always relevant anti-modernist encyclical Pacendi, which was gifted to the Church and the world in 1907:
“One of the primary obligations assigned by Christ to the office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock is that of guarding with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and the gainsaying of knowledge falsely so called.”
To be sure, Francis not only fails to reject profane novelties of words and false secular knowledge; he actively embraces these egregious errors and insists upon the Church doing the same, and therein lies a very sad tale.
Thank the Holy Spirit that Pope Francis and Cardinal Parolin are at least beginning to sound orthodox!
But the questions remain: Why do they undermine the very orthodox Catholic teachings that they are professing to uphold now by putting and leaving in place clerics (Fernandez, Hollerich, Bätzing, McElroy, Martin, Tobin, Coyne, etc.) who openly oppose some aspects of established Catholic doctrine, while demoting good, faithful clerics (Strickland, Mueller, Burke, Sarah, Torres, etc.) who courageously uphold established Catholic doctrine?
Until and unless Pope Francis and Cardinal Parolin back their orthodox rhetoric up by removing heterodox clergy and stop removing faithful clergy, I’m afraid their comments are all just “a noisy gong or a clanging symbol” that is devoid of any authentic meaning.
I just have one compound question. Who kidnapped Francis, and where are they hiding him, and who forged this orthodox communication in his name?
Is this leak merely a ploy to turn down the heat Bergoglio’s Vatican is currently taking for its negligence in defending the deposit of faith?
One way to know is for a local bishop to make sure that every Catholic in his diocese is aware of this Vatican confirmation of orthodoxy. If doing so results in his getting removed like Strickland was, then we will know the leak was just a political ploy.
If all the American bishops did this it would be difficult for Bergoglio to remove any of them.
We have what will go down in history as the “Machiavellian Papacy.” I don’t believe a word that comes out of this Vatican. It’s all so calculated and never to be taken at face value. This Pope is intent on torturing the Faithful. Truth is being sacrificed on a cross every day with this Pope and his legates.
Apparently the pot was coming to a boil too soon. They’ve turned down the heat for the time being. When its convenient it will come back, and far sooner than you believe.
It is consoling to some degree that the voice of Catholics faithful to the perennial Magisterium is being heard, though more as an alarm that Babel might tip over than as an informed theological caution.
The bone thrown to us dogs serves the purpose intended until it is no longer deemed necessary.
Exactly. Plus, the very fact that those issues were being openly discussed is a win of sorts. It’s the March through the institution one step at a time.
Don’t be so overjoyed! This letter could be saying “Wait, Germany, we are already doing everything you want in OUR synod, so stop trying to do it before we get it done. You can’t make these changes just in Germany, these things need to be implemented for the entire church. We will do this next year.”
I was whimsical with my first comment, but I completely agree with the pessimistic views of these comments above. Actually, all of these synods have been to float ideas of heterodoxy to obtain emotional acceptance in the minds of ignorant Catholics and secular media and culture. At the right time, it will seem quite acceptable to make a final push for what will seem like just a minor reform of popular approbation.
Grateful for this news. Still frustrated with everything else around it.
Pray no more jesuitical casuistry remains. I fear the horses are already out of the barn and far away. Do not fear.
that is astute one may wager. Shouldn’t se see a German Bishop’s head on a platter ala B. Strickland?