Vatican City, Aug 26, 2018 / 07:05 pm (CNA).- Please read below for CNA’s full transcript of the Pope’s Aug. 26 in-flight press conference from Dublin to Rome:
Greg Burke: Holy Father, thanks for this time you’re dedicating to us after two intense days. Certainly, there were difficult moments. In Ireland, there was the matter of abuses, but also very beautiful moments: the Festival of Families, testimonies from families, the meeting with the young couples and the visit to the Capuchins, but maybe you want to say something else first…
Pope Francis: To say thank you, because if I am tired I think of you who have work, work, work… I thank you so much for your effort and your work. Many thanks.
Greg Burke: The first question, as usual, comes from a journalist of the [host] nation which is Tony Connelly, RTE.
Tony Connelly, RTE: Your Holiness, you spoke on Saturday about the meeting you had with the minister for children. You talked about how moved you were by what she said about the mother and baby homes. What exactly did she tell you? Were you shocked because it was the first time you had heard of these homes?
Pope Francis: The minister first told me something that didn’t have too much to do with mother and children (Editor’s note: mother and baby homes). She told me, and she was brief: “Holy Father, we found mass graves of children, buried children, we’re investigating… and the Church has something to do with this.” But she said it very politely and truly with a lot of respect. I thanked her to the point that this had touched my heart. And, this is why I wanted to repeat it in the speech… and it was not at the airport, I was mistaken, it was at the president’s. At the airport, there was another lady minister and I made the mistake there.
But, she told me, “I’ll send you a memo.” She sent me a memo and I haven’t been able to read it yet. I saw it was a memo, that she sent me a memo. She was very balanced in telling me, “There’s an issue, the investigation has not yet finished.” But, she made me understand that the Church has something to do with this. For me, this was an example of constructive collaboration, but also of, I don’t want to say the word “protest” … of complaint, of complaint for that which at one time maybe the Church was of help to do. That lady had a dignity that touched my heart, and now I have the memo there that I will study when I get home.
Greg Burke: Now, another Irishman, exchanging places, which is Paddy Agnew, who is from the Sunday Independent, a resident in Rome but an Irish journalist.
Paddy Agnew, Sunday Independent: Holy Father, thanks and good evening. Yesterday, Marie Collins, an abuse victim that you know well, said that you are not favorable to a new tribunal for Vatican inquiries on the issue of abuses, new inquiries on the problem of sexual abuse, and in particular on a so-called tribunal of inquiry on bishops, bishop accountability. Why do you think this is not necessary?
Pope Francis: (speaking over the last part of the question) No, no, it is not like this. Marie Collins is a bit fixated on the idea that came up. I esteem Marie Collins so much. At times, we call her to give Vatican conferences. She is fixated on the idea, the idea of the “madre amorevole” (editor’s note: The motu proprio, “As a loving mother”), in which it is said that to judge bishops, that it would be good to have a special tribunal. Then, we saw this wasn’t practical and it also wasn’t convenient for the different cultures of the bishops that had to be judged.
You take the recommendations of “madre amorevole” and you make the “giuria” (Editor’s note: a special commission of bishops) for each bishop, but it’s not the same. This bishop is judged and the Pope makes a “giuria” that is more capable of taking that case. It is a thing that works better and also because not all bishops are able to leave their dioceses. It’s not possible.
In this way, the tribunals, the “giurias” change. And that’s what we’ve done up until now. Rather many bishops have been judged. The latest is that of Guam, the Archbishop of Guam, who appealed. And, I decided – because it’s a very difficult case – to take the privilege that I have of taking on the appeal myself and not sending it to the council of appeal that does its work with all the priests. I took it upon myself. And made a commission of canonists that are helping me and they told me that when I get back, after a maximum of a month, a recommendation will be made so I can make a judgment. It is a complicated case, on one hand, but not difficult because the evidence is clear. I cannot pre-judge, I await the report and then I will judge. I say that the evidence is clear because there is this evidence which led the first tribunal to the condemnation.
This is the latest step. Now, there’s another and we’ll see how it ends. But, of course, I told Marie that the spirit and also the recommendation of “as a loving mother” is being done… a bishop is judged by a tribunal, but it isn’t always the same tribunal, as it is not possible. She did not understand that well. But, when I see her, sometimes she comes to the Vatican, I will explain it more clearly. I love her.
Greg Burke: Now, the Italian group. Holy Father, Stefania Falasca from Avvenire is coming.
Stefania Falasca, Avvenire: Good evening, Father.
Pope Francis: Good evening.
Falasca: You said also today that it is always a challenge to welcome migrants and the foreigner. Well, precisely yesterday a painful matter was resolved, that of the Diciotti ship. Is your hoof behind this solution? What was your involvement?
Pope Francis: The paw of the devil.
Falasca: Yes, then the second question: many in Europe see extortion on the backs of these people. What do you think?
Pope Francis: The welcoming of migrants is something as old as the bible. It’s in Deuteronomy, in the Commandments. God commands welcoming the migrant, the foreigner. It’s so old that it is in the spirit of revelation but also in the spirit of Christianity. It’s a moral principle. I spoke about this. Then, I saw that I needed to bit a bit more explicit because it’s not a welcoming with the “Belle etoile,” no! It should be a reasonable welcoming. That’s why Europe is all in this. And when did I realize how this reasonable welcome must be? When there was the terrorist attack in Zaventem (Editor’s note: the Brussels Airport), that that young men, the guerillas that made the attack on Zaventem were Belgians, but sons of migrants, not integrated, from ghettoes! That is, they were received by the country and left there, and they made a ghetto. They were not integrated. Then I remembered when I went to Sweden, and Franca (Editor’s note: Franca Giansoldati, Vatican correspondent for il Messaggero) in an article mentioned this, of how I explicitly made this though and when I went to Sweden, I knew it, I spoke about integration, as it was, because I knew because during the dictatorship in Argentina, from 1976 to 1983, many, many Argentinians and also many Uruguayans escaped to Sweden and there the government would integrate them immediately. It taught them the language, gave them a job and integrated them. To the point that, this is an interesting anecdote, a Minister who came to bid me farewell at the airport in Lund was the daughter of a Swedish and an African immigrant. This African migrant was so integrated to the extent that his daughter became a minister. Sweden was a model. But in that moment Sweden was beginning to have difficulties, not because it did not have the good will for this, but because it didn’t have the possibility of integration. This was the reason for which Sweden stopped for a bit. (After this step of integration) And then, I spoke during the press conference among you about the virtue of prudence, the virtue of the government. I spoke about the prudence of peoples, about the number or the possibility. A people that can receive but does not have the means to integrate [migrants], it’s better not to receive them. There, there is the issue of prudence. And I believe that this is the real core of the dialogue today in the European Union. We must continue to speak. Solutions will be found.
What happened with the Diciotti? I didn’t put my “paw” there. He who did the work with the minister of the interior was Fr. Aldo (Editor’s note: Fr. Aldo Bonaiuto, member of the Association “Giovanni XXIII”), the good Fr. Aldo that continues the work of Fr. Benzi, who the Italians know well, who work of liberating prostitutes, those that are exploited… The Italian Bishops’ Conference also was part. Cardinal Bassetti was there, but at the telephone, he guided everything by way of one of his two under-secretaries, Fr. Maffeis (Fr. Ivan Maffeis, director of communications) negotiated with the minister. And I believe that he went to Albania. Albania, Ireland took a number. Montenegro, I think not. I’m not sure. The others were picked up by the Conference, I don’t know if under the umbrella of the Vatican or not, I don’t know how it was negotiated there, and they’re going to a better world at Rocca di Papa (Editor’s note: an Italian town near Rome). They will be welcomed there. The number I believe that it is more than 100 and there they will begin to learn the language and to do that work that is done with integrated migrants. I’ve had an experience that was very gratifying for me. When I went to Roma Tre (University), there were students that wanted to ask me questions and I saw a student that “I know this face.” (Nour Essa, see story here, editor note), and it was one that had come with me among the 13 I brought back from Lesbos. And that girl was at the university because Sant’Egidio from the day after at school, to study, had integrated her at a university level. This is the work with migrants. There is an openness of heart for everyone, suffering, then integration as a condition for welcoming and then the prudence of those who govern for doing this. I have seen a clandestinely made film of the things that happen to those who are sent back. They are taken by the traffickers. Painful, the things that they do to the men… the women and the children, out! They sell them. But to the men, they do the most sophisticated torture. There was one there that was capable, a spy, of making that film that I sent to my two under-secretaries for immigration (Editor’s note: Fr. Michael Czerny and Fr. Fabio Baggio, undersecretaries of the Migrants and Refugees Section). For this, to send them back you have to think well. Then, one last thing: there are these migrants that come, but there are also those who are tricked at Fiumicino. They are tricked. “We give you work, they give you documents.” And they end up on the sidewalk enslaved, under threat from traffickers of women. That’s it.
Greg Burke: Thanks, Holiness. Let’s go to the question from the English-speaking group. Anna Matranga from the American television, CBS.
Anna Matranga, CBS: Good evening, Holy Father. I’ll return to the subject of sex abuse about which you’ve already spoken. This morning, very early, a document by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano’ came out. In it, he says that in 2013 he had a personal talk with you at the Vatican, and that in that talk, he spoke to you explicitly of the behavior of and the sexual abuse by former-Cardinal McCarrick. I wanted to ask you if this was true. I also wanted to ask something else: the Archbishop also said that Pope Benedict sanctioned McCarrick, that he had forbidden him to live in a seminary, to celebrate Mass in public, he couldn’t travel, he was sanctioned by the Church. May I ask you whether these two things are true?
Pope Francis: I will respond to your question, but I would prefer last first we speak about the trip, and then other topics. I was distracted by Stefania, but I will respond.
I read the statement this morning, and I must tell you sincerely that, I must say this, to you and all those who are interested. Read the statement carefully and make your own judgment. I will not say a single word about this. I believe the statement speaks for itself. And you have the journalistic capacity to draw your own conclusions. It’s an act of faith. When some time passes and you have drawn your conclusions, I may speak. But, I would like your professional maturity to do the work for you. It will be good for you. That’s good. (inaudible)
Matranga: Marie Collins said that after she met you during the victims gathering, that she spoke with you precisely about ex-Cardinal McCarrick. She said you were very tough in your condemnation of McCarrick. I want to ask you, when was the first time that you heard talk about the abuses committed the former cardinal?
Pope Francis: This is part of the statement about McCarrick. Study it and then I will say. Yesterday, I had not read it but I permitted myself to speak clearly with Marie Collins and the group, it was really an hour-and-a-half, something which made me suffer a lot. But, I believe it was necessary to listen to these 8 people and from this meeting came the proposal. I made it, the others accepted and they helped me to do it, to ask forgiveness today in the Mass. But, in concrete things. The last thing. I had never heard about those mothers, they called it the women’s laundry, when an unmarried woman got pregnant she went to the hospital, I don’t know what the school was called, and the sisters said that and then they gave the child away in adoption to people. There were two sons from that time, they tried to find their mothers, if they were alive. And they would tell them that it was a mortal sin to do this, and to the mothers who called for their children also it was a mortal sin. For this reason, today I finished by saying that this is not a mortal sin but it’s the fourth commandment. And the things that I said today some I didn’t know (before). It was painful for me but I also had the consolation of being able to help clear these things up. I await your comment on the document, I would like that. Thanks.
Greg Burke: Thanks, Holy Father. Now, Cecile Chambraud of Le Monde.
Cecile Chambraud, Le Monde: Good evening, Holy Father. I hope you don’t mind if I pose my question in Spanish. I ask you to reply in Italian for all of the colleagues. In your speech in Ireland, you refer to your recent letter to the people of God. In that letter, you call all Catholics to take part in the fight against abuses in the Church. Can you provide details for us what concretely Catholics can do each in their place to fight against these abuses and on this theme, in France, a priest has started a petition for the removal of Cardinal Barbarin accused by victims. Does this initiative appear adequate to you or not?
Pope Francis: If there are suspicions, proofs or half-proofs, I do not see anything bad in making an investigation, but always that is done according to the fundamental juridical principal of “nemo malus nisi probetur” – No one is evil until it is proven. But many times there is the temptation not just to do the investigation but to publish that there is an investigation and why he’s culpable and so some media – not yours, I don’t know yours – to create a climate of culpability. I will tell you something that happened to me in these days that can help with this… because for me it is important how you proceed, how the media can help. Three years ago, more or less, the problem of the so-called “pedophile priests” started in Granada, involving 7, 8 or 10 priests accused of abuse of minors and of having festival or orgies and this kind of thing.
I received the accusation myself, directly, a letter made by a young 23-year old, according to him he was abused, he gave his name and everything, a young man who was working in a prestigious college of Granada, and the letter was perfect. And he asked me what to do to report this. I told him to go to the archbishop of Granada and tell him this, and the archbishop will know what to do. He did, and the archbishop did all that he should do. Then it also went to the civil tribunal and so there were two processes. But then the local media began to speak and speak (about this), and three days later, they wrote “in the parish, three pedophile priests” and so on, and in this way the consciousness was formed that the priests were criminals.
Seven were interrogated and nothing was found. On three, the investigation went ahead and they stayed in jail, for five days, two of them and one, Fr. Romani, the parish priest, was in for 7 days. For almost three years and more, they suffered hate, slaps from the whole town… “criminals!” They couldn’t go outside. They suffered humiliations made by the “giuria” declared to prove the accusations of the boy, that I don’t dare repeat here. After three years, meanwhile, the “giuria” declares the priests innocent, all innocent, but most of all these three, the others were already out of the case and the accuser was then denounced because it was seen that he had a vivid imagination. He was very intelligent and he worked in a Catholic college, he had this prestige and gave the impression of telling the truth.
He was condemned and had to pay the expenses. These men (the priests) were condemned by the local media before justice was done. For this reason, your work is very important, you must accompany the investigation but there must be the presumption of innocence, not with the legal presumption of culpability. There is a difference between the informer who provides information on a case, who isn’t playing for a foreseen condemnation, and the one who investigates, who acts like Sherlock Holmes and presumes that everyone is guilty, When we read the technique of Hercules Poirot, for him everyone was guilty, but this is the work of the investigator. They are two very different positions: but those who inform must start from the presumption of innocence, but saying their admirations, but this is a bit special, but why, to say doubts, but without making condemnations. This case that happened in Granada for me is an example that it will do us all good in our work.
Greg Burke: In the first part, you asked what could the people of God do about the issue…
Pope Francis: When you see something, speak immediately. I will say another thing that’s a little nasty: many times there are parents that cover up the abuse of a priest. Many times. You see it in the condemnation. “No, but…” they don’t believe… They are convinced that it’s not true and the boy or the girl remain like that. I by method receive every week one or two, but it’s not mathematical. And I’ve received a person, a woman, that for 40 years suffered this scourge of silence because her parents didn’t believe: she was abused at 8 years old. Speak! This is important. It’s true that for a mother to see it is better that it wasn’t, seeks that the child maybe is dreaming… speak! And speak with the right people, speak with those who can start a judgment, at least an preliminary investigation. Speak with a judge, with the bishop and if the parish priest is good speak with the parish priest, this is the first thing the people of God can do, this should not be covered up. A psychiatrist told me time ago, but I don’t want that this be an offense for the women, that for sense of maternity, women are more inclined to cover the things of the child than men. But I don’t know if it’s true, but… speak!
Greg Burke: Holy Father, we’re moving… the Spanish group. There’s Javier Romero, of Rome Reports.
Javier Romero, Rome Reports: Holiness, excuse me but I’d like to pose two questions. The first is the that the Prime Minister of Ireland, who was very direct in his speech, is proud of the new model of family different from that which traditionally the Church has proposed up until now: I mean homosexual marriage. And this is perhaps one of the models that generates more battles, and I thought in the case especially of a Catholic family , when there is a person of this family that declares themselves to be homosexual. Holiness, the first question that I’d like to pose you is: what do you think, what would you say to a father whose son says he is homosexual, that he would like to go live with his… this is the first question. And the second that you also in your speech to the Prime Minister spoke about abortion, and we saw how Ireland has changed so much in recent years and that it seems that the Minister was satisfied at these changes. One of these changes was abortion, and we saw that in recent months, in recent years abortion has come out in many countries, Argentina among others, your country. How do you feel when you see this is an issue of which you speak often and that in many countries it’s put in…
Pope Francis: Alright. I’ll begin from the second, but there are two points. Thanks for this. There are two points that are connected to the matter that we’re speaking about, on abortion you know what is thought. The problem of abortion is not religious. We are not against abortion for religion, no! It’s a human problem and it should be studied anthropologically. To study abortion, beginning with the religious fact is to skip over thought. The problem of abortion should be studied anthropologically. There is always the anthropological problem of the ethics of eliminating a human being to resolve a problem. But this is already to enter into the discussion. I just want to underscore this: I will never allow that the discussion on abortion begins on the religious fact. No, it’s an anthropological problem, it’s a human problem. This is my thinking.
Second. There have always been homosexuals, people with homosexual tendencies. Always. Sociologists say, I don’t know if it’s true, that in times of epochal changes, some social, ethical phenomena increase; one of them would be this. This is an opinion of some sociologists. Your question is clear: what would I say to a father who sees that his son or daughter has that tendency? I would say first to pray, pray! Don’t condemn. Dialogue, understand, make space for son and the daughter. Make space so they can express themselves.
Then, at what age does this restlessness of the child express itself? It’s important. One thing is when it shows itself in a child. There are many things to do with psychiatry, to see how things are. Another thing is when it manifests itself after 20 years of age… But I’ll never say that silence is a remedy. To ignore a son or daughter with homosexual tendencies is a lack of paternity and maternity. You are my son, you are my daughter as you are! I’m your father, mother. Let’s talk! And if you, father and mother aren’t up to it, ask for help, but always in dialogue because that son and that daughter have the right to a family and that family of not being chased out of the family. This is a serious challenge, but that makes paternity and maternity. Thank you for the question! Thanks!
Greg Burke: Thanks to you, Holy Father.
Pope Francis: And then I would like to say something for the Irish that are here. I found so much faith in Ireland. So much faith. It’s true, the Irish people have suffered for the scandals. So much. But there is faith in Ireland. It’s strong. And also the Irish people know how to distinguish. And I cite what today I heard from a prelate: the Irish people know how to distinguish well between the truth and half-truths. It is something that they have within. It’s true that it’s in a process of elaboration, of healing from these scandals. It’s true that positions are being opened that seem to distance themselves from any faith. But the Irish people have a deep rooted faith. I want to say it because it’s what I’ve seen, what I’ve heard, of which in these two days I’ve been informed. Thanks for you work. Thanks a lot. And pray for me please.
Greg Burke: Thanks to you. Have a good dinner. Rest well!
[…]
Denies calling Cardinal Burke his enemy.
But not treating him as one.
What a tiny, tiny man.
He’s not treating him as his enemy. That’s slander. You, on the other hand, are treating the pope as your enemy.
Tell us, o brave “anon,” how exactly is he treating Cardinal Burke?
As Scripture instructs us, if you enter a town and the inhabitants reject the Word of God, kick off the dust from your feet and go out from that place.
I believe that Christ is calling Cardinal Burke to kick off the dust from the Bergoglian Debacle and remove himself from that place of iniquity and faithlessness. Move on, Cardinal Burke; God has plans for you elsewhere.
Now that Ivereigh has invoked the specter of Abp. Lefebvre, I would not be surprised to learn that the revocation of Cardinal Burke’s apartment and salary proves to be a precursor to his excommunication. Jesus sought for a return of His love, not the cultivation of servile fear among the faithful. Persecution outside the Church is multiplying red martyrs, and within the white sort. God help us!
Why on earth would Francis excommunicate Burke? There is no evidence to suggest he would.
There is a Mt. Everest of evidence he is a man without ethics.
Who?
The man who initiated the first action. Francis obviously.
Because Francis panders in uncharity.
Why not excommunicate Burke? Our current pontiff does many things that have no theological justification, but do have a political purpose. Bergoglio is not a spiritual man, he is a political actor, through and through.
WPI and the spokesman of Pontiff Francis Austen Ivereigh, are the public relations arm of their emergent “paradigm-shift-apostasy-church,” men who shove Christ aside, and assert that a mere steward, a pontiff, is their law-giver.
They promote the pathology identified by Fr. Robert Imbelli, an apostate establishment called “the Decapitated Body of Christ.”
The Pope denies that he called Cardinal Burke his “enemy.” What of it? How childish. Anyone can see that Francis abuses Burke every way he knows how, and even smirks when the “poor man” is intubated. Pope Francis should give up the Christian pretense. Even the NYT reports that Francis is enemies with Burke…
At least we have forever the authentic Catholic witness and Word of God from the first Pope: “Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere love of the brethren, love one another earnestly from the heart.” (1 Peter 1:22)
So much for “Who am I to judge?” as “his enemies” appearto be the closest “friends of God”
good point
Exactly. Evidently the call to listen and accompany applies only to those who willfully defy and reject church teaching. Otherwise, it seems to be open season on the faithful.
My thoughts exactly.
Imagine a kingdom where a friend of God is denied entry to his castle.
Imagine Jesus at Matthew 7:21-23 – “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.”
Matthew 7:13-14 has Jesus pointing to the narrow way. As Francis constricts Burke’s path, so Burke’s eternal kingdom is now more apparent, clear, and bright. God is blessing Cardinal Burke. Francis is a mere instrument. As was Judas, as was Herod, as was Pilate, etc.
The dastardly act is confirmed. How can anyone be so cruel, to evict old men in mid winter [Dec 21 is a technicality, it’s cold outside].
Well, Ivereigh as is his wont has the answer. One cannot claim, as does Card Burke, to be fruit upon the true branch while the tree itself is in disagreement with Burke’s criticisms of Synodality.
If Burke’s eviction is true it can be interpreted as a clear message to the other cardinals.
No magnanimity. No dialogue. Cdl.Burke is a martyr.
I thought that the whole “enemy” bit was unbelievable coming from the Pope; it sounded cartoonish. Glad to hear it didn’t happen.
What is cartoonish is while the pope believes Cdl Burke is acting against the Church all these years he has refused to meet with him even once. Cartoonish and childlike.
How do you know it didn’t happen? A denial from the same source who blatantly lied about McCarrick and blatantly lied about Rupnik?
Having read Julie Meloni’a book The Saint Galen Mafia the way this papacy has developed is no suprise. Vatican II was loaded with Modernists,clergy,laity,biblcal scholars and theologians who were very influential in influencing the Church with their modernist understanding of reality. One example is Father Raymond Brown, whose 20 or more books on the Gospels that denied the divinity of Jesus, denied that Gospels were written by the authors, and underminded confidence in Dei Verbum. I think this what Pope Saint Paul VI meant when he said ‘the smoke of Satan has entered the temple.’
For months I have read many comments on many different posts. I had been educated by them and they have given me food for thought. I feel the criticisms are healthy and necessary. This helps dissipate the clericalism that exists in the Church But, what I have repeatedly read is the comment that one must follow Jesus and not the Pope’s actions, thoughts, pronouncements, etc. This is interesting and enlightening. What I have been taught is that the pope is the successor to Peter and that one of the strengths of our Church is that we obey and respect the pope as the Head of the Church. Myself and others on rare occasions did not agree with the great Saint John Paul II or Benedict XVI, but, we obeyed. Now, I am enlightened to find through commentators in the many posts, that I have read, that if I do not agree with the next pope who may indeed be more conservative, then I simply ignore him and follow my conscience? It is hard to obey but is one of the strengths of our Church. By the way, I am appalled at the Latin Mass bans, the blessing of certain lifestyle, etc.
If some authentic magisterial document teaches this, please tell me the source: “I have been taught… that…we obey and respect the pope as the Head of the Church.” It has been my understanding that we respect the truth and true teachings of the CHURCH. The pope is not equal to the Church.
Thanks.
As I have commented to others This was what I and others were taught in the Catholic school system years ago. I thank you for your comments. I have formed a more enlightened view of the role of the pope on these many months by reading the commentators.
It has several times occurred to me, perhaps not wholly frivolously,that the election of Cardinal Bergoglio might have been permitted so that the faithful (and not just professional theologians) might develop a more considered view of the papacy. In the past I have been an enthusiastic and wholly uncritical supporter of the reigning Pope. But I had then only just become a teenager. And the Pope was Pius XII.
meiron,
Here’s a (portion of a) Vatican I document you might be interested in:
“First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ
Session 4 – 18 July 1870” otherwise known as “Pastor Aeternus”
From Chapter 3:
“We renew the definition of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, in virtue of which all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff possesses primacy over the whole world, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is the true Vicar of Christ, and THE HEAD OF THE WHOLE CHURCH, and Father and Teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him, in Blessed Peter, by Jesus Christ our Lord, to pasture, to rule, and to govern the Universal Church; as is also contained in the acts of the General Councils and in the Sacred Canons.
“Hence we teach and declare that, by the appointment of our Lord, the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical SUBORDINATION AND TRUE OBEDIENCE, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
“And since, by the Divine right of Apostolic primacy, the Roman Pontiff is placed over the Universal Church, We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, and that none may re-open the judgment of the Apostolic See, for none has greater authority, nor can anyone lawfully review its judgment. Therefore, they stray from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an Ecumenical Council, as if to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.
“If anyone, then, shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part, and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the Churches and over each and all the Pastors and the faithful; let him be anathema.”
http://catholicplanet.org/councils/20-Pastor-Aeternus.ht
JML, The Pope is NOT the head of the Catholic Church. Where did you get this idea? I refer you to One, Jesus Christ, Who IS the Head of the Church.
This was what was taught in the Catholic school system I was in at both the elementary level and high school level. This was many years ago. I am not the only one who still believes this. I thank you for your comments to me. It helps shape my views.
In response to your question. This is what I was taught and many others in the Catholic school system where I was educated many years ago. I agree with your comment and thank you for reminding me of the fact that you stated.
Rather than fault your education, have you considered that you were not a very good student? The pope’s job is to protect the Church not destroy it. When he is busy doing damage, we are obliged to disobey. Not complicated.
JML, God bless you. We have faith in Christ who in the Spirit shows us the Father. We make the Sign of the Cross and always without any mention of any Pope. He is Christ’s vicar and only that.
Deacon Edward, with all due respect,
JML did not say anything about the Sign of the Cross.
What JML was saying was respect and obedience to the Pope as head of the Church, as taught in Catholic schools a long time ago.
Not to take away the true and divine authority from Our Lord Jesus Christ over His Church, the “Pastor Aeternus” document of Vatican One does say the Supreme Pontiff is HEAD of the Church and to him is due our respect and obedience.
“Session 4 – 18 July 1870” otherwise known as “Pastor Aeternus.”
From Chapter 3:
“…we renew the definition of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, in virtue of which all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff possesses primacy over the whole world, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is the true Vicar of Christ, and THE HEAD OF THE WHOLE CHURCH, and Father and Teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him, in Blessed Peter, by Jesus Christ our Lord, to pasture, to rule, and to govern the Universal Church; as is also contained in the acts of the General Councils and in the Sacred Canons.
“Hence we teach and declare that, by the appointment of our Lord, the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their DUTY of hierarchical SUBORDINATION AND TRUE OBEDIENCE, to SUBMIT, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals’ but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world…”
“And since, by the Divine right of Apostolic primacy, the Roman Pontiff is placed over the Universal Church, We further teach and declare that he is the SUPREME JUDGE of the faithful, and that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, and that none may re-open the judgment of the Apostolic See, for none has greater authority, nor can anyone lawfully review its judgment. Therefore, they stray from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an Ecumenical Council, as if to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.
If anyone, then, shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part, and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the Churches and over each and all the Pastors and the faithful; let him be anathema.”
JML, you are right – just not enough. The Pope is the head of the Church on earth, i.e., Christ’s representative on earth, and as such, must protect and teach what Christ and His Church teach and do.
If the Pope announced it was ok to shoplift if you need the stuff, would it be ok just because he’s the Pope?? No. Because stealing is wrong and you know it. Jesus walked on water but Popes do NOT. In the past we have had many who had mistresses, children out of wedlock, etc. WE had a point in church history, during the Avignon Residency, where we had TWO claimants to being Pope, who each ran their own bureaucracy.So, who was telling the truth and who to listen to?? They have faults and foibles just like the rest of us. Does not Frances claim that he frequents confession?
When a Pope speaks officially on faith and morals, catholics are supposed to obey. I dont think we need to agree when he calls Joe Biden a “good catholic”. Unfortunately, this Pope has gone off the rails many times making vague unofficial comments regarding sexuality in particular, which has sewn confusion among the faithful. Catholics follow what has been Church teaching, and most informed catholics are aware when a priest, bishop or pope is going off the rails.
As I have replied to other commentator, this is what I and others were taught in the Catholic school system that we attended years ago. Your comments, like the others that I have replied to as well as past commentators I have read over these many months, have helped shaped my more enlightened view. Thank you for your comments. I do believe that we have many bishops who have gone off the rails as well as priests.
JML, you were correct all along. No further explanation is needed. God bless you.
LJ, that’s why Popes should speak rarely so that when they do the faithful sitbup and listen carefully. This Pope suffers from terminal logorrhea.
… but denied that he referred to the American prelate as his “enemy,” according to a web post by papal biographer Austen Ivereigh.
You really can’t make up this stuff. It’s a bit like saying, ‘I heard someone say you like to eat worms on toast, but I corrected him saying you love toast.’
He’s taking away what is essentially the PENSION of a old man who has dedicated his life in service to the Church and his apartment… but “I’m not his ‘enemy.'”
Jesuitical rationalization.
With “friends” like this, please don’t accompany me ….
A truly reprehensible but not surprising action from this petty and misguided tyrant. The war against the faithful continues on.
Really?? Has the Pope heard the old saying ” actions speak louder than words”??
Ivereigh: “It was conveniently in line with the traditionalist narrative of a merciless, vindictive pope who recklessly and unreasonably ‘punishes’ those who disagree with him.”
Yes. It is, isn’t it?
Does anyone believe anything Bergoglio says anymore?
Yes: Austen Ivereigh.
Bergoglio has simply adopted the Carl Olson approach to faithful Catholic writers. A bully’s Bolshevist blackguardism.
I’m sure that Mr. Olson would likewise deny that he considers faithful Catholic writers to be his “enemies.” He has certainly failed to utter one syllable, private or public, which even attempts to explain (since he cannot excuse) his unprovoked malice towards us.
Mr. Stove: I truly don’t know what I’ve done to elicit such a comment. But it’s a rather entertaining remark, so here it is. And, next time, don’t forget to ask me if I’ve stopped beating my wife. Sigh.
Mr. Olsen, Mr. Stove’s “ironometer” needs adjustment.
He also forgot to insert something snide about Trump.
BINGO on Ivereigh. For the stove, the heat was possibly turned a tad too high upon its intemperate mind, and the fire alarm failed. Pity that. Did you once reject a piece he judged as brilliant? Maybe in a sad old age he’s facing homelessness. I don’t believe you beat your wife nor are you unfair to anyone here. The stove needs a new thermometer.
Are you sure you are on the right web page? Your description of Mr. Olson and his work – with which I have disagreed from time to time – is bizarre in the extreme. If he was anything like what you maintain, you would not be commenting here.
Malice? There are plenty of comments here that set my blood boiling, and I know I can be headstrong, but I try to utter a quick prayer and say to myself how would the kind, even temperament of Carl Olson handle it.
Who has thoroughly discredited himself in the eyes of the faithful. No one of merit listens to him any more than they do Francis. The Vatican has become an echo chamber with a cross affixed.
Touché!
Unlike others on this site, I try to apply Hanlon’s razor when the pope does something questionable. “Never attribute malice to something explained by neglect, ignorance, or incompetence”. I try to tell myself that he is coming from a spirit of humility and that he genuinely believes his actions will benefit the church. Like he genuinely wants to help same sex attracted people conquer their fleshly desires by being more welcoming. Or that he actually believes suppressing the tlm will bring more unity. I don’t necessarily agree with those ideas but I try to believe that he is acting in good faith. Only wish more people could be like me.
“Only wish more people could be like me.”
So, you’ll be confessing the sin of pride soon?
Douay-Rheims Bible Luke 18:11
The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican.
Critical thinking is evidence based, ultimately, and rests on the facts. I don’t mean to be disrespectful here, but there is simply no empirical evidence whatsoever to support your belief that Francis is acting in good faith. In fact, the cold hard facts point in the opposite direction, and it is more appropriate to assume the worst than to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point. His actions have spoken clearly and consistently, and actions reveal the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Are you suggesting that he’s just plain stupid?
So you desire to see nothing narcissistic in blatant cold-blooded cynical manipulation? We went through many years of Catholic nihilism in the post VII era where moral theologians made the entire enterprise of moral theology a sophist exercise of a war on God given guilt. The infantile hippie culture of the sixties that said feeling guilty was the primary evil dominated what passed for a moral theology that revived proportionalism and consequentialism to rationalize immorality until JPII largely discredited such thought with his masterful book length encyclical, The Splendor of Truth. Now we have a moral sophist like Francis abusing the concept of “discernment” as a catchword for moral subjectivity. In Amoris Laetitia he tells us a man can “discern” that in his concrete circumstances, God just might be asking him to be happy with his new wife. No mention is made about an absence of mercy towards the abandoned family. This is the essence of his narcissistic thought. A desire to be celebrated by sinners in love with their sins at the expense of the tragic consequences to the victims of sin, immorality which any Christian should understand as his “obligation to judge”. Self-aggrandizement in thought and deed is not the Christian life.
To write “Ivereigh is the author of two hagiographic biographies of Pope Francis” is both inaccurate and clearly uniformed. Both biographies are the most thorough accounts of this pope’s life, formation and subsequent theological perspectives that he has brought to his leadership of the church, however one agrees or disagrees with it. Such ad hominem attacks are not only unwarranted but betray a lack of balance in a matter that one expects informed judgement and fair presentation.
Whom do you believe you are fooling? The Ivereigh “biographies” are comically written, breathless, fanboy treatises that conflict with countless personal testimonies, such as those of fellow Argentinian prelates and ordinary Catholics in Buenos Aires who suffered under Bergoglio’s authoritarian hubris, indifference, and dishonesty. They also clearly conflict with everything that has transpired in Rome over the past decade. Just stop. You sound completely ridiculous.
Maybe, F.X., you’re referring to someone other than Francis.
What’s disturbing is the silence of fellow cardinals , bishops and clergy.
What’s disturbing is the silence from fellow cardinals and clergy
Argentinians – both laity and clergy- know precisely who Bergoglio is. This is why he has never returned to Argentina.
Bingo. He is absolutely hated in Argentina.
Really, I know people in Pennsylvania who despise him.
I recently became aware of a young man who is apostatizing because he finds Francis and his politicization of the Petrine Office to be dispositive proof against Church indefectibility.
I hope you can show him the Church is the truthful word of God that never changes ragardless of corrupt witnesses.
The report came from an anonymous source.
The denial was coursed through Ivereigh.
Such fun!
Just an average garden variety Catholic here……
A) if this account is true I don’t think the Pope thought it through.
B) I am not a fan of his because he has a clear pattern of getting involved in activist politics ( global warming, lgbtqrst, etc etc).
I wish he could find a way to recenter himself and the church to saving souls and lives. He should have long ago been smack dab in the fight for peace in Ukraine. He never stepped foot in Ireland during the abortion battle that legalized abortion. Same for Ireland’s gay marriage referendum.