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.
[…]
Expect now for Francis to render some kind of humiliation and punishment to Mueller:
Like removing him from his position as head of the CDF. Oh, wait…
Like kicking him out of his Vatican housing. Oh, wait..
Like telling him to get out of Rome and go back to Germany. Oh, wait.
I await the day when the next Pope is Catholic and teaches the fullness of the Faith.
I totally 💯 agree
Can we now say that the Pope is teaching heresy?
If so does he remain Pope?
Great questions! Let’s ask the next Pope. Perhaps he will call a Council to answer these. (Magari!;)
Stay tuned. Stay Catholic.
Agreed, Deacon Edward. It is becoming difficult to identify the (Roman) Catholic Church from the positions of the Anglicans.
I fully agree Deacon. Our current Pope, despite all his talk of “Mercy” and “Accompaniment”, is a very spiteful and vindictive person, as his treatment of Cardinal Burke has also shown.
Thank you Fr. Ryan, SJ, and Dr. Brugger for this. And thanks to Cardinal Mūller for clear teaching.
Christ is love. Love is not sin. Adultery is sinful, and therefore not loving. It is pastoral heresy to tolerate sin, such as concubinage. Sin robs us of the eternal peace of Christ, pulling us outside our interior castle for the finite fool’s gold of worldly peace.
Christ teaches: “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, Whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; you know Him, for He dwells with you, and will be in you…If a man loves Me, he will keep My Word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My Words; and the Word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me. These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My Name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid.” (John 14)
Sometimes one gets a sense of how Christ grieved in sorrow as people He loved nailed Him to the Cross.
It would seem, then, that the Pope is not “infallible in faith and morals” and can “teach error.”
To insinuate, enable, routinize and exercise strategic silence might not qualify as affirmative and infallible pronouncements under the restricted definition approved by the First Vatican Council.
Papal Infallibility:
“The Roman Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, he defines [?] with his supreme apostolic authority a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised to him in St. Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith and morals: and therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves (and not from the consent of the Church).”
Is what’s going on today more of an evasive divorce of such pronouncements from pastoral practice? But certainly a “crisis.”
Cardinal Newman comments further: “Was St. Peter infallible on that occasion at Antioch when St. Paul withstood him? Was St. Victor infallible when he separated from his communion the Asiatic Churches? Or Liberius when in like manner he excommunicated Athanasius? And, to come to later times, was Gregory XIII, when he had a medal struck in honour of the Bartholomew massacre? Or Paul IV in his conduct towards Elizabeth? Or Sixtus V when he blessed the Armada? Or Urban VIII when he persecuted Galileo? No Catholic ever pretends that these Popes were infallible in these acts” (from a Letter to the Duke of Norfolk in Vincent Blehl, editor, “The Essential Newman,” Mentor Omega, 1963). In early history, Pope Leo II did not reproach the earlier Pope Honorius with actually pronouncing heresy, but rather with negligence in the suppression of heresy (Monophysitism).
Yes….that is Catholic teaching. The Pope is only infallible in faith and morals under very limited circumstances, spelled out clearly in Pastor Aeturnus at Vatican I. The rest of the time, it is possible for him to err.
Why? To be correct you would have to be infallible in your understanding of a divine mystery.
The Pope’s infallibility only applies when various conditions are met. (cf. https://faith.nd.edu/s/1210/faith/interior.aspx?sid=1210&gid=609&pgid=11186&cid=24701&ecid=24701&crid=0&calpgid=11138&calcid=24580#:~:text=In%20order%20to%20be%20an,it%20must%20be%20clear%20that)
What if one spouse is willing while the other is not – and there are little children?
Consequentialism
God knows better than us because God knows we lie to ourselves, a lot. And God knows the repercussions of our decisions and delusions better than our lies tell us they will be. Absolutes exist for a reason.
This is the reason that whenever prelates, especially high prelates talk in terms of “learning” from the “experience of the laity” they are always trading in profound idiocy.
These situations are crucifying, but why do they require adulterous sex?
God’s grace is sufficient for any situation to live according to His Word. We are all tempted to skip purgation. We follow Jesus Christ, the only Way, even to Golgotha. God’s peace to all.
Back in the day before religion books were changed, we were taught the pope alone nor the bishops alone could deem something infallible. It had to be both, together saying a statement was infallible.
As a non-credentialed layman (and because I am unable to log-in to Cardinal Muller’s open letter), here are three questions about the letter:
FIRST, does it specifically reference magisterial teaching contained in the encyclical Veritatis Splendor (repeated below); SECOND, is Pope Francis’ position based implicitly on his early comment that half of current marriages are actually invalid (possibly retracted later); and THIRD, in his orientation possibly toward such “concrete” cases, does Pope Francis choose a broad-brush response because he now decides as insufficient his early action to relocate the final tribunal for marriage annulment appeals, from the Holy See back to the more expeditious national bishops’ conferences (do I recall this correctly?).
Is Pope Francis not only amending sacramental theology, but setting it aside–as too abstract? If so, is this a myopic over-adjustment to sometimes-excessive rigorism, such that even Vatican II and its Catechism now are eclipsed as the work of so-called manualists? Or, is Pope Francis’ mode of thinking not categorical at all, but only horizontal and broad–as across concrete cases (say what)? At the practical level, then, the consequence of “stretching the gray area” (a term coined by Cardinal Grech) would seem catastrophic–even if one is proposing some version of “gradualism.” Are mercy and truth to be mutually quarantined?
Is the foreseeable consequence (or end game?) to then accommodate and bless–within a polyhedral and “pastoral” (c)hurch–so-called “marriages” under the concrete and homosexual lifestyle?
_______________________________________
Sections of Veritatis Splendor (1993) on irreducible moral absolutes, on a false dualism between doctrine and pastoral practice, and (for the first time) on explicitly including the natural law within the Magisterium:
FIRST, “The relationship between faith and morality […] those moral norms which prohibit without exception [!] actions which are intrinsically evil” [!] (n. 90).
SECOND, “A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid and general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision [not a ‘moral judgment’?] about what is good and what is evil […] to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, and to justify a ‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way obliged, in every case, by a particular negative precept [‘thou shalt not…!’]” (n. 56).
THIRD, “This is the first time, in fact, that the Magisterium of the Church [!] has set forth in detail the fundamental elements of this [‘moral’] teaching, and presented the principles for the pastoral discernment […] (n. 115).
AND, “The Church is no way the author or the arbiter of this [‘moral’] norm” (n. 95).
In the interest of accuracy, and about the blessing of gay “marriages,” part of the contested record is that Pope Francis was party to the 2021 REBUKE sent by the Vatican to what’s left of the Church in Germany.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/03/25/yes-pope-francis-was-involved-in-the-cdfs-document-on-same-sex-blessings-2/
“Sometimes” is the key ambiguity to which all the possible errors infer as delineated by Christian Brugger. Canonist Edward Peters, at the time of insertion of the exchange of letters in the AAS considered Pope Francis’ Riposta to the Argentine bishops, that there was no other interpretation – not specific, thus not magisterial. As it certainly appeared ambiguous when the letters were examined, and I held the opinion that the papal response did not qualify as magisterial teaching.
Card Gerhard Müller isolates the error implied in the ‘sometimes’ ambiguity as permission to offer the sacraments to those living in manifest adultery, who are unwilling to abide to Church requirement to abstain from sexual relations in contrast to those willing to abide who sin through weakness. If Pope Francis refuses to offer a clear judgment on this key issue, it will be apparent that this is and has been his policy since publication of Amoris Laetitia. The advantage for his doing this, if it were his intention, is to effectively make the sacraments available to divorced and remarried living in manifest adultery without actual change in Church doctrine. The manner in which he is changing Church practice.
Mot sure how saying, “there is no other explanation” is “not specific.”
Crusader. Not specific because he is not directly espousing a doctrine. And as Card Müller points out, there is ambiguity regarding permission to offer the sacraments. 1. to those living in manifest adultery, unwilling to abide to the Church requirement to abstain from sexual relations – 2. in contrast to those remarried outside the Church willing to abide to Church teaching to abstain from sexual relations but who on occasion sin through weakness. Pope Francis must clearly state whether he’s referring to the conditions of 1 or 2.
Father Morello, thank you for the response. I understand what you are saying and what the Cardinal said in this article. But my point is that the typical Sunday Mass going Catholic is going to see “there is no other way to interpret it” as pretty specific. Just as they see things like, “There is no longer any just war,” Life sentences are the same as a death penalty,” God wills a multitude of religions” and on and on as specific. Catholics read these things and either think this is what I should believe, or reject what he says and mistakenly believe they are cafeteria Catholics. Either way great harm is done.
Obviously most Catholics do not have a PhD in theology and cannot parse every papal statement to see if it is a true magisterial statement.
Crusader, unfortunately your right, that the average Catholic will perceive Pope Francis’ words as binding Magisterial doctrine, and likewise, unfortunately only the minority will know that the Vatican is promoting a ruse.
This has been the policy of deception from the beginning of this pontificate. At least we can try to inform those who are misguided, that’s the best you and I can do is witness to the truth and offer prayer and sacrifice.
The Synodaling of this pontificate reminds me of that great classic by St. Teresa of Avila: The Exterior Castle. And her other masterpiece The Way of OK. Or was it The Way of So So? Or Sort of Good? Anywho, the point is that we are called to do the bare minimum to trigger the algorithm of God’s mercy. Blessed are the nice, they shall inherit NGOs, Etc. See you in October. A holy (?) kiss to you all. 💋
It is difficult to take this piece seriously while knowing that Dr. Brugger rejects the death penalty via the same paradigm of innovation used in Amoris Laetitia. In fact, Dr. Brugger suggests that capital punishment is intrinsically evil and something which God permitted only temporarily. Once you admit that God can allow intrinsically evil acts, the Church in its magisterial capacity at very high levels of authority can support and implement intrinsic evil, and the duration of time which passes during which a teaching is taught is irrelevant then all is up for grabs. Hey, maybe Trent was wrong and Amoris Laetitia is right?
The death penalty as routinely used in the States does seem an evil to me and an injustice because the difference between a life sentence and capital punishment is often the ability to retain decent legal representation.
However, if in the rare occasion when there’s no other way to protect society there should be a very small window open for the death penalty. With modern correctional facilities that’s not something that would occur often. In earlier eras that differed.
For over 1900 years the Church’s justification for the death penalty did not have to do with a lack of adequate correction facilities. Even Pope John Paul II in his encyclical on Life said that the primary purpose of punishment was to reestablish right order. In other words, retribution (and not vengeance, as many bishops have called it). So, the punishment should fit the crime. This was the position of previous popes and saints.
A lot of things were uglier and crueler in past centuries Crusader. There’s a long list. I’m not condemning folks in past eras who simply took their cues from the social status quo but reforms have been made in the criminal justice system since then.
MrsCracker – Not to belabor the point, but the Church did not take its cues from the social status quo, but from scripture, the Church Fathers, etc.
Previous CWR articles by Edward Fesser and Joseph Bessette regarding their book “By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed” explain this in a much more thorough way that I could not do here.
That’s precisely the thinking that got me dismissed as a potential juror in a death penalty case.
Hopefully it works the same way for me, Palace Guard.
🙂
But you never know. The last time I served on a jury my answers to the defense attorney’s questions should have alerted him I’d not be sympathetic to his client but he was a lousy lawyer and we convicted the drug dealer.
If he’d sold more drugs perhaps he might have been able to retain better legal representation.
Just read a book by Pyotr Wrangel, White Russians against the Reds, he used summary executions to stop the depredations against civilians, very effective. Keeping a human in a cage for life seems a fate worse than death unless the subject is given the spiritual means to effect a metanoia – certainly missing in our system.
A rational objection to the death penalty is political and not moral. A corrupt government, prosecutors, law enforcers, judiciary should not be empowered to execute citizens.
But the Beloved One Himself submitted to an unjust death sentence and took the good thief with Him to paradise. So impending death may have great value to transform the soul as well as defining for society that certain barbarous acts will get you terminated to face your fate at the Hand of God.
The pope would have Charlie Manson walk free.
Is the execution of heretics a bad thing if it does in fact lead to the salvation of many other souls?
If someone is unjustly killed by State authority then what effect has the Grace of God on an innocent death or martyrdom?
The extermination of countless millions of innocent babies in the womb makes the capital punishment argument look like mere window dressing, pathetic virtue signaling.
Yeah, God practiced the death penalty quite frequently in the Old Testament.
Dr. Brugger, did God change His teaching and practice? Was He wrong when Sodom done blew up?
That supposed change in the catechism “inadmitting” the death penalty might be the most distressing “magisterial” development in the last decade..
How often did He practice that in the New Testament?
I don’t know about your level of trust in our government but I personally don’t want to give the state that much power over life & death. If we don’t trust them to run fair elections, enforce quarantines, or properly use our tax dollars do we really want to trust them with our lives or the lives of others? Not me.
Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead in Acts 5.
There you go, Greg.
🙂
God is certainly in charge of whom He smites & when but I think we can confuse that with our secular justice system which has a far less perfect record determining innocence & guilt.
I think if we oppose the use of the death penalty outside of exceedingly rare circumstances it’s also on us to make sure life sentences without parole mean just that. Currently parole boards routinely release sociopathic violent felons to prey again on society. It becomes a revolving door.
And in times of war, with no forces available for policing saboteurs, we should leave them to their murderous backstabbing? Or pretend that turn the other cheek was not a metaphor limited to absorbing hate, insult, and minor violence?
Aurhority is Divine. Annoited Kings subservient to a Valid (Non-freemasonic) Pope are its expression on earth. Everything else is of the freemasonic Anti-Church, Anti-City.
To J Skell and others,
I believe you have mischaracterized Dr. Brugger’s position on capital punishment. From one of his own articles, this is his conclusion:
“The 1997 Catechism clearly means to treat the death penalty as a form of self-defense and clearly means that the killing it entails must be outside the intention. The act it justifies using the term capital “punishment”—which is not really punishment at all, but a form of self-defense—does not contradict the norm: no intentional killing whatsoever. And it remains open to say that the death penalty as retributive intentional killing is always wrongful.
The CCC is authoritative for Catholics. Its reasoning on capital punishment, even if non-traditional, is not contrary to any definitive teachings of the Church. Therefore, Catholics may legitimately affirm that the death penalty is per se wrongful.
Since the legitimacy of intentionally killing criminals is not a definitive doctrine of the Catholic Church, and since three pontiffs have now taught that the morality of legitimate killing must be assessed in terms of self-defense, it follows that the Catholic Church can declare that the death penalty as intentional killing is always inadmissible.”
See https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/10/20344/
For a more complete assessment of Dr. Brugger’s position that also takes up God’s actions in the Old Testament that some people wrongly apply in this debate, I recommend that you read in their entirety the following articles:
“Capital Punishment Is Intrinsically Wrong: A Reply to Feser and Bessette” by E. Christian Brugger (2017) at https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/10/20341/
“Catholic Tradition, St. John Paul II, and the Death Penalty” by E. Christian Brugger (2017) at https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/10/20344/ that I also quoted from above.
Brugger’s overall position that of course remains open for debate is that Capital Punishment used as Intentional Killing for revenge, etc., is intrinsically wrong, but Capital Punishment implemented only as a means of legitimate self-defense is acceptable and not intrinsically wrong.
So argue as one will in favor or opposed to Brugger’s position, it is important to make it clear what he actually states about the use of Capital Punishment and how he reasons that one form of use is intrinsically evil while another form of use is not. It is wrong to generalize his position as many have done and continue to do to make it look like he is opposed to Capital Punishment in and of itself, which he is not.
What you expostulated as Dr. Brugger’s view is precisely the position which I had in mind with my original post.
His position is formally heretical.
See Genesis 9:5 and Exodus 21:23–27 with appropriate patristic glosses.
The important distinctions made by Dr. Brugger are either eluding you or you do not care to look into them more honestly, and so you now accuse his position of being formally heretical, which makes no sense in light of all that he has written on the topic and the references he cites which address and go beyond yours and others in many respects. His position may not be correct, but declaring it to be formally heretical without explicitly pointing out why it is actually heretical (your 2 biblical references and overly broad reference to patristic glosses are woefully inadequate) based on what he has specifically written and not mischaracterized by you and others is simply not justified.
Hopefully others more interested in honestly and fairly engaging Dr. Brugger will thoughtfully and sincerely review the 2 articles cited in my previous comment that lay out Dr. Brugger’s actual position on the topic.
I am not interested in debating this issue with you here. Many others, most notably Dr. Feser, have written numerous articles refuting Dr. Brugger’s heretical and blasphemous views.
Genesis 9 and Exodus 21, the way they were understood by the magisterium, and the patristic doctors are unanimous in rejecting the possibility of Dr. Brugger’s view. This has been documented well in the very book that Dr. Brugger wrote on the topic. See “Capital Punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition, Second Edition.”
“Conservatives” on sexual moral issues are virtually indistinguishable from modernist heretics when it comes to other topics.
As I said, I don’t want to argue so this will be my last post on this thread.
Jack Skell must explain why in this case the OT alone would make the outlined position heretical.
Note the ongoing ad hominem attacks on Dr. Brugger, but no depth nor sincere engagement by Jack Skell in his comments. Instead, he pontificates that Dr. Feser’s work has illustrated both heretical and blasphemous views of Dr. Brugger, which are absurd on their face, and strongly suggest that Skell also does not understand the meanings of heretical and blasphemous. Thanks to Elias Galy for also pointing out the shallowness of Jack Skell’s unhelpful comments regarding the debate that has not been definitively settled.
Thank you, Dr. Brugger and Fr. Ryan, for this measured, thoughtful and informative treatment of a very distressing topic.
If Bergoglio fails to direct Tucho and the Dark Vatican to reverse the Holy See’s erroneous teaching on administering Communion to adulterers, would it be a deal-breaker? Would it mean that either the pope is not the true pope, or that the Catholic Church is not the true Church?
Because in that case, it seems to me, that the doctrine of papal infallibility becomes untenable.
Something has to break.
Further consideration on the topic of this essay is the prospect of what effect will a correction have, if indeed the DDF or Francis himself decide to implement one? It’s been close to 8 years since publication of Amoris Laetitia and insertion of the exchange of letters between Argentine hierarchy and His Holiness’ [too oblique as I then referenced it] affirmation entered into the AAS. Implementation has occurred en masse worldwide since.
It was at the time the strategy, I believe it was Fr Antonio Spadaro SJ editor La Civiltà Cattolica, undersecretary for the Dicastery for Culture and Education, and Francis’ consigliere who said their hope was that the expected changes would be sufficiently entrenched in Church practice that correction would not be able to change the momentum away from ‘rigid’ doctrine. Indeed that would seem the case. It would take an extremely effective ‘overhaul’ to quote Chris Altieri led by an extraordinary leader to accomplish that task. As C Brugger and Fr Ryan conclude there’s always hope.
So, if Pope Francis and at his urging/insistence the Magesterium of the Church promotes and makes this a “new teaching” of faith and morals; then what are we to make of the man or woman (or both) who are in illicit relationships outside of their marriage? Should they then not be approved, by the Pope and Church, to simply go to confession and then Eucharist while continuing their illicit relationship outside of marriage. A case could be made for that to be “acceptable” as an appendage to the Pope’s letter and agreement. One could say, well so long as “I am unable to stop my relationship outside of marriage for “love” ” then so long as I confess this sin and “do my best to stop, yet do not” then it is acceptable to this Church to continue. Yes, it seems ludicrous, yet, one could try and make this case. This is not just dangerous but changes the teaching of the Church by many previous Pope’s (some of whom are now Saints) now causing the laity to wonder which Pope the Holy Spirit and God’s Word is actually upon? Which Pope is actually following the Holy Spirit or following their own thinking and leading the Church according to their beliefs, not those of our God? Confusing and dangerous for our Church. God help us all to understand.
David, if Bergoglio were a freemasonic infiltrate seeking to explode the remains of the Post-Post-Conciliar Catholic Church, would he need to change Anything? Nothing at all, what-so-ever would need to be changed. THAT is the problem…
This article is very helpful in making Cardinal Müller’s analysis more accessible and accurately summarising his clear reasoning regarding the need for an answer to the dubia around sacramental absolution.
The dilemma brings to mind being taught that St Thomas made a clarification regarding the purpose of amendment to not sin again, however I have not been able to locate it in his writings, so I am not sure of its accuracy. It related to the term sin as being used properly of mortal sin, so that the purpose of amendment requires the firm intention to not commit mortal sin.
I will see if I can find where Thomas makes this clarification before placing further importance on this clarification for understanding the current “stand-off” between the cardinals.
In other words, as explained by Cardinal Fernandez in various places, if a confessor ascertains that a person in an adulterous second union is in a situation of reduced culpability for that adultery (cf: “causes her to sin” Mt5:32), then the confessor may absolve if the adulterer has a firm purpose to avoid all mortal sin (i.e. sins of grave matter for which they do not have reduced culpability).
This brings to mind the situation of a person whose spouse insists on contracepted sex. Under certain circumstances a person is not obliged to refuse contracepted sex with their spouse, however, the vademecum discussing this makes it clear that the person should not initiate sex if it is likely the spouse will insist on contraception.
What I find lacking in Cardinal Fernandez’s explanations is clarification around the penitent not requesting adulterous acts. There seems to be a difference between adulterous acts that are reluctantly agreed to under seriously coercive circumstances and adulterous acts that are actively requested by the penitent.
If anyone can point to a place where Cardinal Fernandez or another ‘authority!’ distinguishes these that would be helpful.
I forgot to add that in all these situations, the penitent should also commit to taking all appropriate steps towards removing themselves from the coercive situation, for example, gradually winning over the spouse to “brother and sister” continence.
It should also never be forgotten that most sin has some reduced culpability, but not sufficient as to reduce a sin regarding grievous matter to the extent that the sin is only venial. The circumstances would have to be seriously debilitating of a person’s freedom to reduce culpability for adultery so that it is not mortal. Again, this point is obscure in the explanations of Card. Fernandez, if it is made at all.
God does not want them to put themselves through all that torment when they are required to separate completely and purify interior life. Even if there are children, they are giving them the perpetuated scandal not the witness.
Not being able to reunite with the real spouse immediately is not an obstacle.
Casuistry must arrive to the truth not something else approaching the truth later, or, more falsehood, later, while keeping the falsehood now and having the truth as “so revered” it is then said to be “rigid”.
In all things, it is essential to discern God’s will.
With regard to the adulterous arrangement, can it be said in all Truth that what is being permitted is God’s will? The Pope must be able to say that the position he is stating is one he believes “without a shadow of a doubt is God’s will.”
Such a statement should never be made frivolously but with fear and trepidation.
It occurs to me that, in the past, it’s always been the voice of the evil one urging me to rationalize my sins.
Now, it seems, it’s also Bergoglio and his Dark Vatican.
This would appear to be one of history’s more portentous tipping points.
The most important element here that Muller and others who know better are not addressing is that this document is not “merely” one of the DDF but is a papal one, part of Francis’ magisterium. It was approved in what is called “in forma specifica”: when there is indication that a curial document is also approved by the pope, such as by saying that it was granted or approved in an audience with him and/or also signed by the pope- which are both the case here- it ceases to be a doc. only of the curia but is now a papal one. Muller incorrectly describes it as only a document of Fernandez but probably does not want to open the can of worms that we have a pope guilty of objective heresy. It’s hard to imagine Muller doesn’t know this, as it is a well-established, basic canonical institute.
judgment runs amok
Freelance note-board colloquy/excursus/deliberation – Re: AMORIS
Amoris indicates the following bollix / botch up, about itself:
1. corners the subject unrealistically /humanistically
2. into non-catholic corner attempting to catholicize it
3. does not address nature of divorce
a) temporal / natural law
b) supernatural / Divine law
4. deliberate estrangements temptations/pitfalls
5. open wound with potentially no healing until death
6. field day for third party attenuations on sacrament
7. positions SUBSTITUTION (sin) relationship as remedy/consolation
Apparently the justification for all this is that there is a strong current of Pelagian incurvatus rigidism requiring an undating of Thomism? Even if there were such a thing it does not correspond to the problems identified above for FAITH purposes. If there were such a person involved in a putative marriage found to be null, the issues in Amoris would be insubstantial. And Amoris itself isn’t even able to identify this but in fact sets out ideas making it worse trying to justify “substitutions” in over-extenuated/exaggerated reflections, deflecting attention from where it should be.
Thank you, CWR, for this article. It provides the reader with a clarity on the issue that is all too rare.
I wonder what kind of feedback the average Catholic would get if they sent it to their parish priest or the local bishop requesting their thoughts on it.
A compilation of such feedback would reveal much about the state of the Church today.
My debut novel,The LORE of UNSPOKEN, is a new fantasy story that presents aspects of Catholic faith in a hidden and somewhat mysterious way. Not unlike the present doctrinal controversies affecting the Church, at the heart of the novel’s fantasy world lie the caves of light, and for a long time many have wondered whether inscribing truths on those mysterious walls would result in those truths lighting up. Of course, this is not the whole story or plot, but the guardians of those caves came to the view that nothing ambiguous could ever light up on the mysterious walls, owing to the contradictory and damaging interepretations that could result. Perhaps a story for our times.